The origin of the New Testament;

HARPER'S LIBRARY of LIVING THOUGHT

THE ORIGIN

OF

THE NEW
TESTAMENT

BY

t DR. WILLIAM
WREDE

HARPER
BROTHERS

LONDON XNEWYOEK

THE ORIGIN ;:J1

OF THE

NEW TESTAMENT

BY

fDR. WILLIAM WREDE
N

PROFESSOR OF NEW TESTAMENT

EXEGESIS IN THE UNIVERSITY

OF BRESLAU

TRANSLATED BY
JAMES S. HILL, B.D.

RECTOR OF STOWEY, SOMERSET

LONDON AND NEW YORK
HARPER & BROTHERS

45 ALBEMARLE STREET, W.
1909

GIBT

CONTENTS

PAGE

TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE , . . ix

INTRODUCTION . . i

I. PAUL AND THE PAULINE EPISTLES . . 8

PERSONALITY OF PAUL . . .10

THE EPISTLES OF PAUL . . .24

1 CORINTHIANS . .29
GALATIANS . . 30
THE ROMANS . . . -32

2 CORINTHIANS . . . .33

1 THESSALONIANS . - . -33
PHILIPPIANS . . . -33
COLOSSIANS . . . -34
PHILEMON . . . . -35
AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLES . 35

2 THESSALONIANS . . . .40
EPHESIANS . . . . -40
EPISTLES TO TIMOTHY AND TITUS . 41

P75797G

CONTENTS

PAGE

II. THE GOSPELS . . -45

THE SYNOPTICS ... 49

MARK . -53

MATTHEW . .54

LUKE . . . . .56

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM . . 58
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LIFE OF

JESUS . . . . .66

THE GOSPEL OF JOHN . . -75

III. THE REMAINING BOOKS OF THE NEW

TESTAMENT . . . .91

THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES . . 91

EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS . . 102

THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES . . .107

2 PETER . . . . .no

JUDE . . . . .Ill

I PETER . . . . .112

EPISTLE OF JAMES . . 113

EPISTLES OF JOHN . . -US

REVELATION OF JOHN . .116

IV. THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON 130

viii

TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE

* I ^HE present brief and crisp treatise on The
A Origin of the New Testament was originally de-
livered by the late Professor Wrede to an educated
audience of lay folk in the form of lectures. The
reader will not fail to perceive marks of this in
the direct personal style of address throughout.

A certain melancholy interest attaches to it as
a posthumous publication. It is among the literary
remains of the late Professor William Wrede,
published by his brother with the assistance of a
friend of the deceased theologian. The present
work is intended for, and suited to, a much wider
circle of readers than more elaborate and techni-
cal works. The interested layman, or the busy
cleric with insufficient time at his disposal for
wider special study, will here find a plain and,
considering the limits of space, exhaustive account
of the present condition of criticism of New
Testament origins from what is commonly known
ix

TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE

as the standpoint of the " advanced " school.
The work itself sufficiently explains and makes
clear its point of view.

The student or the thoughtful reader will
scarcely be in need of being reminded that it is
obviously impossible within the limits of so few
pages, in so small and popular a treatise, that the
arguments which may be advanced in favour of
the more conservative and traditional, not to say
orthodox, positions should be stated at length.
The interested student must go elsewhere for
these.

An example may be given. On the question of
the early decease by martyrdom of S. John as
bearing on the authorship of the gospel tradition-
ally ascribed to him, Wellhausen makes the confi-
dent statement that John suffered martyrdom
with his brother James in Jerusalem ; on which
Harnack, in a review of an article, which appeared
in the Irish Quarterly for 1908, on the Tradi-
tions as to the death of John, the son of Zebedee,
says that the positiveness of this statement does
not make it more certain. It rests on two ques-
tionable arguments apart from the controversial
interpretation of S. Mark x. 35, while it has half a

TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE

dozen of the strongest arguments against it.
Wrede, indeed, admits in the thoroughly plain and
candid manner which characterises his style in
this book that this is a doubtful point. In the
article alluded to Bernard shows how the probably
false tradition of this martyr- death may have
arisen. This may serve alike to illustrate how the
interested student may extend his reading, and
gather up fixed points, distinguishing them from
those which are far from settled, but also of the
fine candour which marks the style of the author.
He nowhere dogmatically decides where something
like certainty is not obtainable.

In a much longer published article on S. Paul, of
which what is here said of the Apostle is in some
sense an echo, Wrede draws out a contrast, and,
so to speak, antinomy between S. Paul and Jesus.
Of this there are no traces in the present brief
dealing with the same subject, while sufficient is
said to give a medallion portrait of the author of
the epistles with whose origin he deals in so
compact a fashion.

The most fastidious student cannot find fault
with the work on the score of want of due reverence,
or of consideration for the opinions and feelings of

TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE

others, while all who are at once interested in the
subject, and unprejudiced in opinion, will feel
glad to possess in so wonderfully clear and com-
pact a form the results of labour on such serious
and important problems. Not a word is wasted
from beginning to end. Only an expert, thoroughly
master of his subject, could have packed so much
into so small a compass.

JAMES S. HILL.
STOWEY RECTORY,
March, 1909.

THE ORIGIN
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

INTRODUCTION

EF us go back in thought two hundred years,
to that time when the subject of the origin
of the New Testament was not one of widely
extended interest and things were in a wholly
different position. The question — how did that
book, small, but extraordinarily influential, and
so infinitely important for mankind, which we
call the New Testament, come into existence ? —
did not exist at that time at all for the wider
circles of learning, and scarcely for theological
science itself. Only the very merest beginnings of
a scientific treatment were then present, and almost
another hundred years elapsed before the extra-
ordinarily zealous and enduring labour was com-
menced which theological science has been applying
ever since to obtain an answer to the question.

To be sure, even to-day the result of this labour
is as yet in no way the common property of the
educated classes ; still it has so far penetrated
into the wider circles that there is everywhere a
sense for and interest in the problem, and par-
ticularly among all those who are seeking a recon-
ciliation between the interests of religion and the

ORIGIN -OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

results of modern science ; and also among many
who have little of religious interest, and desire
simply, as educated men, to know what is the
state of the case with the classical sources of
Christianity — that is the New Testament.

This openness for the subject, this interest in
the questions which are here put give to a scientific
expert the right to speak plainly on these matters.
It is perfectly true that it is a subject of special
delicacy, because intellectual and emotional in-
terests are everywhere bound up with it. But it
is just as true to say that it is impossible for science
to remain obscurantist. It must be permitted to
communicate honestly and openly what it has
honestly investigated to those who honestly in-
quire.

Now inquiring is : wanting to know, therefore an-
swering is communicating knowledge. This quite
briefly indicates what I intend in my work. I intend
to explain what we know of the origin of the New
Testament, and how much we know. That is all.
I emphasise this because some might easily expect
something from this work which it is not intended
to offer. I have neither the design to defend the New
Testament against objections, nor even to attack
and confute certain ideas on the New Testament,
and its value. That sort of subordinate design
is aside from my purpose. It is the legitimate
privilege of real, genuine science to ignore all that
has to do with the theological passions, and

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

controversies of the day, and undeviatingly to
aim at one end only — namely, to get right down
to the bottom of the facts. I wish to make use
of this privilege at this present time.

But one thing must certainly be clearly said in
advance, for no misunderstanding must be allowed
to arise on this head. The former conviction which
for many still remains unshaken in respect to the
supernatural origin of the Bible, especially of the
New Testament, science cannot share. For science
itself has destroyed that idea. It is shattered
even by the simplest facts ; for example, by the
manifold contradictions which exist in the narra-
tives of the four gospels. It is, besides, demon-
strable that when the New Testament writings
arose this idea was not in existence ; and it
really represents a later judgment of the Church
on those writings. No, the books of the New
Testament were not, as was once thought, literally
dictated to the human authors by God Himself ;
rather were they written by men in a way entirely
human ; in a word, it is a question of historical
origins, memorials of a religious history, the
history of Christianity at the epoch of its com-
mencement.

This does not impugn the religious value of the
New Testament, or affect the sublimity of its
ideas. But it is really quite plain that the ques-
tion as to the origin of the New Testament is
a historical, and a purely historical question.

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

The theologian who is busied with it is in truth
a historical scholar. He inquires in quite the
same way as he who strives to ascertain from
ancient documents the primitive history of the
Roman State or the origin and age of the books
of the Hindoos. Even the so-called orthodox
theologians do not theoretically act in a different
way. They propound the same questions as
the theologians of the liberal or critical school,
and they decide them by historical considerations.

But in all this there lies the fact that the in-
vestigation demands (as it will bear) full freedom.
The results of research cannot possibly be as-
sumed at the outset ; the line of march cannot
be prescribed, or otherwise the whole inquiry is
mere illusion, and child's-play. And the inter-
mixture of any kind of theological opinions, of
any kind of prejudices every scholar earnestly
deprecates, and, so far as he is concerned, anxiously
avoids. The point is to ascertain the facts of the
case in regard to a long-past event. How, then,
can subjective opinions, personal theological con-
victions, possibly contribute to its elucidation ?
They can only be a continual source of disturbance.
Knowledge of what once was and what once
happened can never be settled by subjective con-
siderations, but only from existing historical
documents and sources.

But is the question as to the origin of the New
Testament capable of any solution ? To this

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

we can neither answer by a mere affirmation,
nor a mere negative. Over the origins of all
great historical movements there usually lies a
certain gloom or twilight. Is not this true in
many respects also of Christianity ? It is as with
the seed-corn ; the first stage of its growth is
completed under the covering of the soil. Of
course any one who lived in the period of the
commencement of Christianity might probably
have noted its growth. But it is naturally the
case that a newly arisen religion does not, to
begin with, feel the need of self-observation, and
of laying by in store a fund of information for a
later time. A religion in the course of formation
is full of intensive life, but it does not busy itself
with self -study. Such interest does not arise
until a later time, and then a good deal of the
early period has become obscure, or quite dis-
appeared from view. As regards the writings of
the New Testament, trustworthy information of
the kind that may be derived from later ecclesi-
astical writers is very sparse. Our knowledge
depends in the main wholly on the New Testament
itself. But since this did not aim at imparting
information about itself, it is easily intelligible
that there must always be many gaps in our
knowledge, even in important matters ; and
that elsewhere we can only get closer to the truth
by inference and hypothesis. In fact, scientific
assumption, hypothesis, plays no small part in

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

this department. And wherever this is the case,
there is always present the possibility of error.
This is gladly made a reproach against free
theological inquiry when it is said, it works so
much on hypothesis, and so many of these hy-
potheses turn out to be untenable. But only
those who are but partially informed are terrified
by this charge. Hypothesis is an absolutely
necessary means for gradually advancing to better
knowledge in an obscure region of inquiry. It
is only he who builds up a flimsy hypothesis, and
does not distinguish between hypothesis and
assured results, that is blameworthy. For the
rest it is true in manifold ways : we must have
the courage to make mistakes. For an error may be
fruitful, it may contain elements of truth, and
assist in finding out the right way. That it
shall do no injury, science itself will take care, for
it is a ceaseless process of self-correction.

However, I have no desire at all to awaken the
impression that in our department everything is
insecure and doubtful. That is really not the
case. By unwearying labour research has suc-
ceeded in actually solving, or partially solving,
a great number of problems. If, therefore, we
must be quite content to be ignorant of much,
and possibly never know many things, while
acquaintance with other points is only tentative
and uncertain, it is still, in no way whatever,
purposeless to face the question as to the origin

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

of the New Testament. We are able after all to
draw a definite picture, and frequently to rectify
current ideas.

The observations which I have so far made I was
compelled to say in advance in order briefly to
make it clear in what sense I am thinking of
treating my problem. I now turn to the subject
itself.

The theme embraces in reality not one question,
but two, which are to be separately treated. In
the first line we ask as to the origin of all the
separate twenty- seven writings which are brought
together in the New Testament. This problem
will form the main element in my work. How-
ever, it is at once obvious that twenty-seven
separate writings do not of themselves constitute
the New Testament. The further question is
raised : how did it come to pass that these writings
were formed into one whole ? or how did the
collection of writings and the special distinction
which belongs to them above all other writings
arise ? In a word, what was the origin of that
which we call the New Testament canon ? To
this question I will devote some attention at the
close of the present work.

PAUL AND THE PAULINE EPISTLES

WHEN Jesus died there remained to His fol-
lowers the heritage of the powerful impres-
sions which they received from His personality.
There remained also the remembrance of His words
and of the substance of His teaching. But no
written heirloom was left to them. For Jesus wrote
nothing. He was no learned author, no theologian.
He was more than this, a free-grown son of the
people. He was not busied with books, or with
the exposition of the maxims of the Law, like
men whose profession it was, but with living men,
and most of all with those among whom books
were scarcely read, let alone written. It is
correspondent to His whole inner nature that He
who lived in the spirit troubled not about the
written letter. When the Master was gone, the
disciples were to begin with nothing more than
a Jewish sect whose speciality properly consisted
in the fact that they saw in Jesus the Messiah
whom the Jews expected. Its adherents \vere
most naturally and first of all formed among the
lowly and simple, not amongst the educated
classes. That at once makes it intelligible to us
how it was that on this commencement of the
8

THE PAULINE EPISTLES

new religion no adequate writings were produced.
Besides, the hope was cherished of a speedy
coming of Jesus in His Messianic glory, and this
too was perhaps a hindrance to the thought of
putting into writing their cherished recollections.
But finally they also possessed a book, which
Jesus also reverenced ; a book which at first
completely satisfied all needs — the Old Testament.
Of this we shall have more to say.

I desire to draw attention to these points,
because it is important to make it clear that the
beginnings of the Christian society are older than
the first beginnings of the New Testament, and
generally of a Christian literature. A Christian
society existed at least two decades before the
first of the New Testament writings was written ;
about a hundred years before the last arose, about
one hundred and fifty years before the foundation
of a collection of New Testament writings was
in existence, and quite three to four hundred
years before this collection in its present shape
was completed and generally recognised.

Which of the writings of the New Testament
have we to put at the beginning of the develop-
ment ? The ordinary layman for the most part
has the idea that it is the gospels. For they open
the series of the New Testament books, and they
convey information of the beginning, i.e. of Jesus
Himself. This idea is doubtless wrong. But also the
epistles of James and Peter do not stand in the

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

forefront. The oldest Christian writings that we
possess are rather the epistles of S. Paul. The
epistles of Paul, therefore, naturally form the
first subject for our consideration.

To-day we are accustomed to regard these
letters as literary products. For do we not find
them in a book, read them in printed pages ?
But the man who composed them never thought
of himself as an author, and it never occurred to
him that his utterances would one day be multi-
plied and get into the form of a book. It did
not even occur to him that they would at all
be preserved, and soon after his death would be
dispersed through the whole of Christendom.

Each genuine epistle is the product of a definite
time, and designed for a single purpose such as
never repeats itself ; it has a definite situation of
the recipient before the eye of the author. And
every genuine letter is only designed for a par-
ticular recipient, whether of a single person or a
single group of persons, as a church. Nothing is
farther from the intention of the writer of letters
than the idea of publication, otherwise he could
only write an " open letter." But then this is only
the form of a letter, and not the real thing.

Consequently, then, the epistles of S. Paul are
not as to their origin literature, they are through-
out products of the occasion, designed for a
wholly private circle, and in this way their first
recipients regarded them. We herewith note an

10

THE PAULINE EPISTLES

important difference between the epistles of Paul
and the other portions of the New Testament.
A gospel, for example, or the Acts of the Apostles,
was never written for an individual person or a
single church ; such a work according to its
nature is designed for an indefinite public, appears,
and is diffused, reckons on diffusion ; whoever
likes can read it, and it is therefore always a
literary product. It is precisely in this distinction
that there lies a good portion of the peculiar
charm which the Pauline epistles exercise on
every one who gives himself the trouble to read
them connectedly, and is able in some measure to
understand them. A genuine letter, if it is not
a merely business one, continually bears a personal
impress, and at the same time the confidential and
familiar stamp. It is therefore a bit of life, no
mere product of thinking, but a bit of real inter-
course between man and man. It is in truth
a substitute for the spoken word, for living,
moving conversation ; it is personal interest in
definitely real circumstances, and mirrors the
frames of mind which are awakened by living
intercourse, inspiring the words of joy and sorrow,
of sympathy or aversion, of disappointment,
annoyance, or hope.

It is important in any writing to know the author.
But whoever writes a book or a treatise, e.g. a
gospel, for the most part only deals out to us what
he thinks or knows ; his thoughts or his information

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

may be understood even if he himself is un-
known. But he who writes a letter of importance
deals out what he is. And if we would really
fully comprehend letters of a distant past, we
must know the personality of which they are the
effluence. Even the epistles of Paul will not be
truly living so long as we do not possess a clear
picture of the man who wrote them. The man
himself is the explanation of his letters. On that
account we must be permitted to sketch him at
least in hasty outlines. We must not, however,
merely think of his personal character, but also of
his religious and theological views.
... Paul belongs to the few (even in the religious
sphere few) men whose life is separated into two
halves by a single event. He experienced such
a breach striking down to the very depths. From
that moment when he experienced the vision at
Damascus which made it a certainty to him that
the Jesus, whom he hated, and whose followers
he persecuted, was risen from the dead — from that
moment onward he is a different being, and lives
henceforth in the feeling that he has so become.

This, of course, must not be erroneously con-
ceived. In a certain sense we might properly say
of Paul that he remained after his conversion the
same that he was before. There remained not
merely the peculiarities of his temperament, but
also'his moral qualities, the essential traits of his
character.

12

THE PAULINE EPISTLES

The conversion of Paul did not consist in his
turning away from a life of sin in order to become
a saint. The guilt of his life he only sees in his
denial of Jesus, in his unconscious blindness to
that which he subsequently regarded as truth.
It lies properly, therefore, in the region of con-
viction, of belief, and only indirectly in that of
act so far as that act — i.e. the persecution of the
followers of Jesus — was the expression of con-
viction. Therefore the conversion itself belongs
in his case to the region of conviction, and of
belief. And so it may be said of him with a
certain correctness, that although converted and
transformed, he still remains the same. Paul
the Pharisee is as to character more similar in
fact to that of the Christian Paul than we com-
monly suppose. Even Paul the Pharisee strove
to serve God with passionate zeal, and with deep
sincerity, only in another way. And even the
Christian Paul shows a certain severity, harshness,
passionateness, such as once characterised the
Pharisee.

Nevertheless, it remains true that Paul was
really another through his conversion. All his
capacities and peculiarities certainly are impressed
with a new spirit. Above all, the feeling in him
is never weakened that he is a subject of grace,
and to that corresponds a deep and pure gratitude.
Besides this there is also the consideration that he,
the whilom persecutor, feels himself called to be a

13

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

chosen instrument. But the principal thing is
the feeling of a great freedom which has fallen to
his lot. He is freed from this whole world of the
flesh, of sin and of death, and at least in his belief
he feels that he is already transplanted into a new
and higher existence, which will really become his
own when he has put off the body of the flesh.
" Behold, all things are become new."

The feeling of this freedom fills Paul to the
depth of his soul, but anything like inactive
indulging in it is far from him. This feeling
prompts him to action. His gratitude expends
itself, as it were, in a burning zeal to work, and
to woo for Him whose grace he has experienced ;
and so much the more as in this way he atones for
the guilt of the past. In fact, Paul must, after
his conversion, according to his whole nature, be
as active for the Gospel as he once was antagonistic
to it. And thus he became the unique messenger
of the Gospel whose life is simply spent in his
calling.

He who gives himself the trouble to dissect
dispassionately what the apostle attempts in his
working will perhaps here and there observe that
a certain ambition to accomplish the highest is
not foreign to him. Paul is in no way quite
indifferent to the question as to what he ac-
complishes. However deeply he feels that all
that he does he owes to the grace of God, yet he is
not in the usual sense modest or diffident ; he is

14

THE PAULINE EPISTLES

not without a strong self -consciousness, and knows
well enough that he has " laboured more than they
all " (i Cor. xv. 10). He makes it his special boast
that he has done more than his mere duty, and
especially in so far as he declined any recompense
for his work in the Church, or any support. He
declares that he would rather die than that any
one should take away this boasting from him.
He hopes also to find a special reward from God
for special service (i Cor. ix. 15 fL). All this
may be shown from his letters. But this am-
bition is, however, doubtless not the essential
element, it is only an accompanying chord. The
chief motive of his zeal still remains his enthusiasm
for the cause of Christ, and the consciousness that
he is set apart for and called to his work.

Paul belongs essentially to those who are in a
special sense religious personalities. The converse
side of this is that he felt himself as regards the
world a stranger to it. He says in fact " all is
yours " (i Cor. iii. 21), but it is a misunderstanding
if we take this saying to mean that he had a
frame of mind open to the world. In this point
he feels quite differently from Luther. He
despises the wisdom of " the world," and does not
find enjoyment in its pleasures. He knows
nothing of family life, and does not feel that this
is any loss ; he even boasts of it as a gift of grace
that he feels no desire to marry. Nowhere in
his epistles does it appear that he had any senti-

15

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

mental feeling for nature. The lilies of the field
and the birds of the air do not trouble him. In
short his idea of the worldly and natural life has
undeniably something gloomy in it. He does
not see the brighter side of things, but, above all,
he sees sickness, misery, the ruin of sin. This is
explicable, not merely from the fact that he (as all
contemporary Christians were with him) is con-
vinced that they are near to the end of the world,
but it lies deep down at the base of the whole of
his religious conceptions. Of course we cannot be
greatly surprised at this since this pessimistic
temper of mind was widely spread throughout
cotemporary Judaism. And, as above said, this
is only the converse side of his personality being
wholly concentrated on the world of faith and the
cause of God.

Paul must have been a person of overmastering
energy. His letters lead us to feel this. It was shown
in his relations with his converts, his churches, his
opponents. How winsome he can be to men is
likewise shown by his letters. But his manner, we
may suppose, was not alike attractive to all. He is
easily abrupt, often ironical, brusque, and bitter,
passionate and hasty in front of his opponents, and
can even call them " dogs " (Phil. iii. 2). It may be
questioned whether he was always quite correct
in his judgment. Justice is often hard to those
natures whose feeling is that they exclusively are
the representatives of a divine cause. But of
16

THE PAULINE EPISTLES

course it is certain that this man was not devoid
of love, he who has sung the praises of love
in so sublime a manner. Especially when he is
met with confidence as in the church of Philippi,
there he is warm, there he can discover the true
tones of affection.

The most important natural characteristic of
the apostle is of course his tough, unbending
energy. His life is a battle, everything shapes
itself into a combat. He is just as extraordinary
in carrying out plan after plan, and in his
expeditions through wide stretches of country,
winning one piece of ground after another ; as,
on the other hand, in enduring the sufferings
which his calling brings with it, in un-
wearying self - sacrifice. The pictures of these
sufferings, for instance, in 2 Corinthians iv. 6-u,
are amongst the most pathetic of anything he
wrote.

This energy is still the more worthy of admira-
tion when we remember that his body appears to
have been only a rather feeble organ of his activity.
His opponents say of him, " his letters are weighty,
but his bodily presence is weak and contemptible "
(2 Cor. x. 10). He himself in Corinth, the city of
commerce and of culture, had to battle with a feeling
of timidity such as results from weakness of this
kind (i Cor. iii. 2), and he speaks especially of a
bodily weakness repeatedly recurrent, " a thorn in
the flesh given to him, a messenger of Satan to
c 17

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

buffet him " (2 Cor. xii. 7). This is supposed to
have been a kind of epilepsy.

We are tempted to bring into connection with
this suffering a certain visionary excitability and
irritability which we must suppose from his own
statements. He repeatedly experienced visions
and revelations. This is indeed only another
side of his religious enthusiasm, the energy with
which he was filled does not therefore stand in con-
tradiction thereto. But what one would not expect
to find united with this tendency to the visionary,
namely, thoughtful wisdom, practical prudence, is
that which the apostle undoubtedly manifested in
questions of church life. The finest memorial of
this is in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, where
he, in a magnanimous way, shows how in church
life he can reconcile the extremes which were
manifest, and knows how to bring the spirit of
order to bear on all sorts of abuses.

If we take all these things together, Paul is a
character which certainly had its human limita-
tions, but which we can without exaggeration call
great and noble, great by the power of faith, great
by the pure sacrifice of the whole man for his cause.

In what, then, consists the significance for the
history of the world of this apostle of Jesus ?
We will first of all think of the fact that he carried
the new faith to a great number of the most
important centres of civilisation, for he worked
throughout in the most considerable cities.
18

THE PAULINE EPISTLES

Certainly that is a great, but it is not his sole
service. It is still almost more important that
he raised the faith in Jesus which so far was bound
to the narrowness of the Jewish religion high
above this level. Paul set free Christianity from
Judaism ; he produced this great division by his
work as Missionary to the Gentiles, as well as by
his theory of making Gentile Christians free from
the duty of fulfilling the Jewish ceremonial law.
By this he further was the first to establish
Christianity as a new, independent religion,
designed for all nations. The preliminary con-
dition for this lay in the fact — which also belongs
to his world-wide historical importance — that he
was in a certain sense the first Christian theologian,
i.e. the first who really thought on the new faith ;
who, reasoning, contrasted the Christian religion as
a religion of redemption with the Jewish religion
of the law, and attempted to account for this
contrast.

Of course, when we call Paul a theologian, we
are not to think of this in the modern sense of
the word. He was neither in the present sense
of the term scientifically trained, nor did he think
through his thoughts on all sides, and develop
them connectedly and logically. But according
to the idea of the times he was a theologian.

That is a conclusion from his life- history. As
the son of strict Jewish parents born in the Cilician
city of Tarsus, he went as a young man to Jeru-

19

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

salem, certainly with the intention of becoming
a learned Jew, a rabbi. It might be supposed
that against this is the fact that he learnt the trade
of a worker in leather. But the carrying on of a
trade was among the rabbis no unusual thing.
We find among them shoemakers, smiths, and so
forth. The epistles of S. Paul show us in many
places that he really had received a rabbinical
training, and brought it with him into Christianity.
He has indeed also much natural acuteness, a gift
of developing thoughts ; but the manner in which
he divides a proposition and proves it, the way
in which he arrives at conclusions and various
objections, in order directly to refute them, shows
at once the rabbinical training. This accounts
for his acuteness often becoming subtlety. For
example, on one occasion he lays stress on the
proposition that the promise of Abraham's seed
must refer to Christ, because the word "seed"
is used in the singular (Gal. iii. 16). That is pure
rabbinism. Luther himself said that this reason
was too weak to stand the test.

Especially does this method of training exhibit
itself in his exposition and application of the
Old Testament. In this respect Paul shares the
methods of his time, which appear to us to be
quite impossible. He insists on the letter, he
takes passages out of their context, he neglects
the actual sense of the words, and explains them
allegorically, i.e. he assumes that behind the

THE PAULINE EPISTLES

proper sense there lies still another presumably
deeper. Only those who do not understand the
period can be surprised at this. All these pecu-
liarities fall away when he turns in simple speech
to his churches ; while they are particularly
prominent, when the question concerns the
establishment of propositions and the confutation
of opponents.

But he who freed himself and others from
Judaism and the Jewish law, still brought much
more Judaism into his Christianity. That is fre-
quently unrecognised, but it cannot be denied.
What was more natural ? When Paul was con-
verted he was a Jewish theologian. How, then,
could he free himself from all the ideas which he
had hitherto held ? No one who has such a long
spiritual development behind him can suddenly
make himself into a blank sheet of paper. If he
gains new ideas, then they will reasonably mingle
with the old ones. Indeed, if we compare the
utterances of the Pauline epistles with the Jewish
writings of the times, then the convincing proof
is at hand, that Paul held many more originally
Jewish opinions as a Christian than is commonly
supposed. To these belong his statements con-
cerning angels and demons, on the last things, on
sin, on the fall of Adam, on the divine predestina-
tion, and many other points.

Of course this Jewish heritage is now appre-
hended and penetrated, partly transformed, by

21

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

ideas proper to Christianity. And these naturally
form the important and peculiar elements in his
views.

» In the centre of his thoughts stands the person
of Christ, but it is not the life of Jesus, not His
words, His teaching, not His sublime personality
in its purity, love, and goodness, on which he
insists. That is for him quite subordinate.
Rather to him Christ is a divine being, who has
descended from heaven to earth and taken the
form of a man, and apart from this doctrine of
incarnation he dwelt, properly speaking, only on
two things, on the death of Christ on the cross and
on His resurrection. According to Paul it might
even be said that Christ really only became man
to die and rise again. In the crucifixion and in
the resurrection of Christ he finds the divine
secret of our redemption. The death of Christ
has freed the whole of mankind from the service of
sin and of the law, nay, from the whole of this
worldly existence ; the resurrection has opened
to it a correspondingly higher glorious life in
heavenly glory. There are scarcely any Christians
to-day who hold the opinion of Paul closely in
this sense, and make it their own, as he has in-
tended it ; but it cannot be gainsaid that the
teaching of Paul bears a strong relationship to
strict Church teaching

There are those who have actually called the
Apostle Paul the proper founder of Christianity.

THE PAULINE EPISTLES

That is an opinion which cannot be maintained.
But we shall be compelled to confess that the
teaching of Paul is in no way a mere repetition,
or even a mere development and enlargement of
the teaching of Jesus. There really exists a
striking difference between the teaching of Jesus
and that of S. Paul, and the apostle has laid the
stress on thoughts which were not present in the
original preaching of the Master. The explana-
tion and illustration of this I am unable to enter
upon here. It is moreover important to note that
Paul never saw Jesus during His life, or, at any
rate, did not know Him personally, nor come
under His influence. Any one may make the dis-
tinction clear to his own mind by simply reading
consecutively the Sermon on the Mount and the
Epistle to the Romans. In the case of Jesus no one
can speak of His dogmas. The step to dogma is
taken by Paul. But if we must so decide, we must
then not overlook four points. First, it was just this
theological, dogmatic manner of Paul that was a
means of giving firmer stability to the Christian
faith in the world of that day — for every religion
which is to have a future will somehow produce
a theology, shape out definite connected ideas,
such as are not essential to mere simple piety.
Secondly, Paul remains the liberator from Jewish
narrowness and the Jewish law ; and thirdly, he
has in his teaching on justification by grace,
through faith — although in a form variously

23

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

misunderstood to-day — given expression to a
thought which is the core of what has everywhere
and always been characteristic of genuine religion,
that man in relation to God recognises himself as
a recipient, and does not boast before God of his
excellence. Fourthly, his epistles, beside their
peculiar teaching of redemption, which is the
central thought, contain numerous expressions
such as are related to the spirit of the Master,
and ever and again will edify the sympathetic soul.

We return to the EPISTLES OF S. PAUL. We
have to start with spoken of them as letters of
occasion. The occasions which called them forth
originated with the missionary activity of the
apostle, the extraordinary extent of which the
known names of the epistles, Corinth, Thessa-
lonica, Galatia, etc., remind us. To the missionary
work of Paul belonged not merely the winning
of converts, but besides this the confirmation
and training of those already converted, the care
and edification of the churches already in existence.
The epistles are nothing else but a part of this
edifying and pastoral activity, for they are all
addressed to those already won to Christianity
and existing Churches.

Paul availed himself in his epistolary corre-
spondence of a means of intercourse which pre-
sumably was already in use throughout the whole
world of the scattered communities of the Jewish
diaspora. Possibly he may have taken from

24

THE PAULINE EPISTLES

thence also certain set forms which regularly
recur in his epistles, especially at the beginning
and end of his letters. The salutations which
stand at the head of his epistles, with the usual
name of the sender, of the persons addressed,
which contain a wish (Grace be with you), answer
generally to ancient usage ; only this wish has
in the case of S. Paul a specially religious and
Christian colouring. But even this religious
colouring, and the manner of placing greetings
at the conclusion, and of again giving utterance
to prayers for blessing ; further the habit of
giving expression at the outset to thanks for the
prosperity of the church — all such things may
very well be influenced by Jewish examples.
The Judaism of the Greek- speaking world — and
Greek was then the universal language — has,
generally speaking, served for a certain preparation
for the mission of Christianity.

There is no doubt whatever that Paul wrote
far more letters than we possess to-day. At one
time, of course, it was not allowed that epistles
of Paul could be lost, because the fact appeared
to cast a doubt on the teaching of the divine in-
spiration of the Scriptures. But the fact is most
definitely clear from the evidence of the received
epistles. The First of Corinthians in chap. v. pre-
supposes that Paul had already written a letter
to Corinth, which we no longer possess. Between
the First and Second of Corinthians, there was, in

25

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

all probability, another letter to the Corinthians,
now lost, which Paul says he wrote with tears.
In the Epistle to the Colossians he mentions a
letter to the neighbouring church of Laodicea (in
Phrygia). This too has disappeared. But there
is scarcely need of such testimonies. Before
Paul traversed, in a bold expedition, the wide
region of Asia Minor, and then passed over on to
the soil of Europe in Macedonia and Greece, he
was actively engaged in Syria and his native
Cilicia for a period of fourteen years. We have
not a line of his belonging to this period. Is it
likely that he wrote no letters during this period ?

The fact that numerous, and quite certainly not
merely unimportant, epistles of Paul have been
lost is not merely of significance because we can
very well perceive from this how little the writings
of S. Paul were looked upon as inspired, but it
also shows us that in our present epistles we have
only a fragment of the whole. Nor do we know
completely, but only fragmentarily, all the views
of the apostle. For in none of his acknowledged
letters has he developed his whole thoughts.

Still we may be glad for that which has been
preserved. The whole of the present epistles fall,
of course, into a period of about ten years: the
first, i.e. the First Epistle to Thessalonica, and the
oldest Christian document generally, apparently
written in the year A.D. 54, belongs to the later
mission period, while the last, probably that of
26

THE PAULINE EPISTLES

the Epistle to the Philippians, was written during
the Roman imprisonment. But on the interven-
ing time the received epistles cast a very clear
light. They show us Paul in most active relation
to his churches. Besides this they are so different
in their kind that they suitably complement one
another. In the Epistle to the Romans we have a
letter to a church unknown to the writer ; in the
Epistle to the Colossians also ; but the latter
church was founded by an intimate disciple of
Paul (Epaphras), and recognised the apostle's
authority. All other epistles concerned his own
churches. The short letter to Philemon, again,
was to a private person. We have letters
which show a close, warm relation of Paul
to his churches, as the i Thessalonians and the
Epistle to the Philippians, and again others, as
the Epistle to the Galatians, where he appears as
critic and combatant. In the one the questions
concerning the life of the church are prominent,
as in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, in the
other we have notices of the person and life of
Paul, and the Epistle to the Romans is strongly
impersonal in its style. We have quite simple, un-
assuming letters like i Thessalonians, Philippians,
and again such as those in which the didactic
elaboration occupies the largest space. In short,
the scanty material is at the same time very varied.
Whoever applies to the letters of Paul the test
of formal correctness, smooth expression, polished
27

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

style, will be compelled to say that the defects
are numerous. The Greek language was of
course Paul's native speech. But the style is
often rugged, often too many thoughts are forci-
bly compressed into one proposition. There is
no absence of obscure sentences ; the metaphors
are often not, as regards style, carried to com-
pletion. Paul himself would surely not have
claimed the praise of an artistic letter-writer, just
as little as that of orator. He has himself admitted
that he would not satisfy conventional taste in
his speech (2 Cor. x. 10). But they are not the
greatest orators who know how to speak in ornate
propositions without flaw or fault — at least if
that is their whole secret. He is the greatest
orator who sways the souls of all hearers, who
understands how to charm the listener by his
personality, as by his subject. Such an orator
Paul must have been. And accordingly his
letters too, merely as letters, merely in the matter
of style, although not faultless, yet exhibit a
considerable and rare originality. They take the
readers captive, because they are a true expression
of the living personality, and also because there
is no pretence about them. At the same time
there is also no absence of rhetorical passages ;
without effort he employs, too, the means which
the orator loves, play on words, antithesis, etc.
When he is soaring his highest he is able to write
passages which the first stylists in the world
28

THE PAULINE EPISTLES

might envy. A Swiss author has lately spoken
scornfully of the epistolary stylistic monstrosities
of Paul. Now this critic would hardly be able to
write anything comparable to that panegyric of
love : " Though I should speak with the tongue
of men, and of angels, and had not charity, I
should be as sounding brass, and a tinkling cymbal"
(i Cor. xiii. i).

Paul usually dictated his letters. In the Epistle to
the Romans, e.g., a certain Tertius speaks of himself
as his amanuensis. From this usage much obscurity
and much of the incorrectness of his method of
writing may be explicable. We must in reading
always bear in mind : these are dictated letters.
At the conclusion of the letter Paul then willingly
took the pen in his hand, and added greetings,
and perhaps a few short pithy sentences. In
various ways he emphasises this : " The salutation
of me Paul with mine own hand " (i Cor. xvi. 21) ;
in the Epistle to the Galatians he writes : " See
with what large letters I have written to you with
mine own hand," and in this way indicates the
difference between his own perhaps large hand-
writing and the smaller script of the amanuensis.

Of the content and character of single epistles
no complete picture can be given in brief. It
must suffice to draw out some main features.

In historical value the FIRST EPISTLE TO THE
CORINTHIANS takes, above all, the first place. And,
in fact, just because Paul here enters on such a
29

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

large number of questions, and occurrences in
relation to church life, and in part gives precise
answers to a series of inquiries which the church
in Corinth had made in a letter no longer extant.
What invaluable information we have here on
the prevailing usages, and on the method of divine
worship ; of the celebration of the Supper of the
Lord ; of enthusiastic speaking with tongues and
prophesying of those filled with the Spirit ; of
the veiling of women in public worship ; of the
position of Christians in regard to the use of food
which had been offered to idols ; of eating flesh
presented in the heathen temple and then offered
for sale ; of the doubt in the minds of many
Christians on marriage ; of lawsuits before heathen
judges ; of those who denied a bodily resurrection
— all these subjects are treated. We gaze on an
extraordinarily active life, full of fresh movement,
but full of leavening energy, full of extremes and
dangers. The picture of the Church is no way a
mere picture without shade ; strife and party
spirit have already entered ; there is a tendency
to divisions ; and how traceable is the old
heathenish spirit observable in the relations of
the sexes. In short this epistle is a true mine of
information, a document of the first importance
to the investigator of the oldest Christianity.

Of emphatically original value is next the
shorter letter which Paul sent to the Galatians,
the Christians of the small Asiatic province of
30

THE PAULINE EPISTLES

Galatia. It is the outcome of powerful excitement
on the part of the apostle, in which his impetuous
and combative disposition reveals itself. It
exhibits to us a situation which justifies the
excitement. It has not all happened so peacefully
and harmoniously in that first Christian com-
munity as one might easily imagine. The mis-
sionary work to the heathen was for Paul not
merely heroic effort, but even a real battle, a
battle against those who were not content with
a Christianity which was not at the same time
Judaic. The Epistle to the Galatians itself con-
tains, besides other important information on
the life of Paul, the much- discussed report of
an interview between S. Paul and the Judaistic
Christian apostles in Jerusalem ; in which these
apostles, in spite of differences at the outset,
convinced by the success of the apostle, gave
a formal recognition to his Gospel freed from
the law, although not sacrificing the law.
There were, however, Judaistic Christians who
were not satisfied with this. They organised a
regular agitation against Paul. They sent their
emissaries into his own churches, in order to
seduce his disciples from their allegiance. This
agitation was now being carried on in Galatia,
and the churches of Paul are on the point of
yielding, and adopting circumcision, according
to the Jewish law. This is the significant situation
in which Paul despatches this epistle. And this

31

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

explains the passion and the displeasure which
permeate it : he sees the work of his life threatened
precisely on this point. In opposing the Judaisers
he at the same time uses his theological weapons,
and develops thoughts on justification by faith
alone which are of the greatest value for the
knowledge of his opinions. In this respect, how-
ever, as a didactic epistle, the Epistle to the
Galatians is considerably surpassed by an epistle
nearly related to it, that to the Romans.

The Epistle to the Romans was intended to^be
a message preparatory to a personal visit to Rome,
which, of course, was only regarded as a halting-
place in carrying out his designed journey to
Spain. Paul had so far never been in Rome ; the
Roman Church was not even founded by one of
his disciples. He was therefore a stranger to it.
We can thus easily understand that this epistle
has a very impersonal ring about it, and reads
more like a treatise. Paul develops, above all,
two thoughts : first he defends his gospel of justifi-
cation without the works of the law ; and then
his design is to make the fact comprehensible
that his own Jewish people, for whom he has a
patriotic regard, could, in spite of the promises
which have been given to it, be cast away ; and,
at the same time, he gives expression to his convic-
tion that these promises would one day be ful-
filled in the conversion of Israel. The statements
in this epistle present difficulties to the under-

32

THE PAULINE EPISTLES

standing which in themselves are great. But the
most difficult problem consists in understanding
what Paul intends, with all his explanations of the
law and of the Jewish people, to say to a church
which, according to clear evidence, consisted of
men of Gentile birth. This problem according to
my idea has not, in spite of numerous attempts,
been really solved.

Impersonal as the Epistle to the Romans is, the
Second Epistle to the Corinthians is the most
personal of all. But this too is particularly
difficult, of course, on quite different grounds from
that of the Epistle to the Romans ; simply be-
cause it is hard to judge from the information
given what the events in Corinth were to which
Paul alludes. In other respects, however, we
again meet in this epistle with the Judaising
agitators. There is, however, no lack of the most
important teaching. And still more valuable are
the materials which we find for the biography of
the apostle, especially as to his sufferings and
revelations. Less important than these four
letters are the First Epistle to the Thessalonians
and the Epistle to the Philippians (both there-
fore sent to Macedonia), and yet with all their
unassumingness they have their special charms.
The ist Thessalonians is especially instructive
in that it concerns a still young and scarcely
established community. The Epistle to the
Philippians is the warmest and most affectionate

D 33

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

of all the Pauline epistles, and in this respect a real
jewel. For the doctrine of the person of Christ,
the epistle to the church of Colosse, or Colasse, is
important. Paul is here treating of a special
phase of thought, i.e. with the so-called false teach-
ing which has a half- Jewish colouring and half not ;
and which perhaps was one of those religious
mixtures such as, in that period, particularly in
the East, were everywhere so frequent. This
teaching laid stress on Sabbaths, feasts, and new
moons ; besides, it demanded abstinence from
flesh and wine ; it was ascetical, and united with
this a peculiar worship of angels.

Five epistles which stand in the New Testament
as letters of Paul I have not so far mentioned : the
Epistles to Timothy and that to Titus, the second
to the Thessalonians, and that to the Ephesians ;
the reason of this is, I do not consider them to
have been written by Paul.

But have we any certainty at all that we
actually possess letters from the pen of Paul, and
that they are from the Paul to whom we have
ascribed them ? There have been and are a
number of critics, especially in Holland, who
deny this. They have held the opinion that these
epistles all originated in the second century A.D.
In this opinion I can only recognise an extra-
ordinary retrogression of criticism. Surely there
are really quite definite marks of an authentic
letter, and those are present in full measure in the

34

THE PAULINE EPISTLES

epistles of Paul. A quite definite personality
speaks in them, and such a one as is conceivable
only at the commencement of the Christian
development. The utterances on the circum-
stances are so vivid, concrete, and at the same
time so spontaneous that every idea that they
concern only fictitious statements must be absurd.
We may take one single example only, the most
unpretentious and perhaps the least known
among all the epistles of Paul, the "note" to
Philemon. Philemon was a distinguished man
from Colosse. A slave named Onesimus had run
away who had probably been guilty of some
fault against his master. This Onesimus had met
with Paul, remained with him a time, and won his
regard. Then he sends him back to his master,
gives him a letter, and begs Philemon to receive
back his slave in a friendly spirit, and forgive him.
He does this in an affectionate and courteous
manner, and he covers the fault of Onesimus by
making his cause in a certain measure his own
cause. " Whom I have sent again : thou therefore
receive him, that is, mine own bowels." " Receive
him as myself."

Now how can any one suppose that this letter
is a mere artificial piece of work ? It has, however,
been said that the letter really only represents a
general idea, namely, how Christianity makes a
slave the brother of his master. But this idea is,
in fact, by no means put didactically, and set out

35

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

in general propositions, but it is simply an incident
of actual life which is treated. That this incident
should be invented would be more unintelligible
than that it actually occurred. In this way
the other epistles have their actual origin from
Paul most plainly stamped on them. To-day
then, in Germany, the following epistles are
admitted by as good as all the learned to be
genuine : the Epistle to the Corinthians, the
Galatians, the Romans, the ist Thessalonians,
Philippians, and the Epistle to Philemon. On the
other hand, it is not generally recognised that
Paul wrote the Epistle to the Colossians. It is
especially considered that the teaching of this
epistle deviates from that of the rest. I consider
this epistle genuine. That Paul makes statements
somewhat different from common is quite natural,
because in this case the angel worship of the false
teachers determines his utterance. For the rest
there are for all the teaching of this letter points
of contact with the other letters which may be
shown.

Notwithstanding, this is not, of course, saying
that all these genuine epistles were published by
Paul in the shape we read them to-day. Prob-
ably this is true of the Epistle to the Romans.
In the final chapter we have an exceedingly long
list of greetings which Paul sends. Plainly those
thus greeted are, for the most part, personally
and intimately known. This is clear from the

36

THE PAULINE EPISTLES

adjuncts to the names. Now Paul had not been in
Rome when he wrote this epistle. How is it then
that there were so many to whom he was known ?
This difficulty has led to the supposition that the
greatest part of this sixteenth chapter belonged
originally to another Pauline epistle, and thus
had by some accident become attached to the
Epistle to the Romans, and much may be said
for this supposition. Probably it is a question of
an epistle to the Ephesians. If we conceive of it
in this way it is possible by acute exegesis actually
to obtain a short history of the church of Ephesus
from this long list of names. Also of the Second
Epistle to the Corinthians it has been thought
that a separate epistle may be separated from it,
which orginally constituted another epistle to
the Corinthians. As a matter of fact the tone of
Paul in this portion changes so suddenly and
surprisingly, he becomes so bitter and sharp, that
such an idea is probably worth considering al-
though it has not yet been actually demonstrated.

We must, however, return to these five letters
of which I have said that Paul did not write
them. Very many experts agree with me in this
opinion ; most at least deny the Pauline authorship
of four, the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and the
Ephesians.

But do not these epistles claim to be Paul's ?
His name stands at their forefront. They bring
guarantees which have only meaning if Paul is

37

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

their author. The Second Epistle to the Thessa-
lonians says at the end : " The salutation of me
Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in
every epistle. So I write."

Then are we dealing with falsifications and
deceitful pretence, a morally doubtful author ?
This will be the impression which will, of course,
easily arise in the mind of the layman, and it
is quite intelligible. Of course, we ought not to
be led astray in our judgment. For if there are
actually decisive reasons for supposing a forgery,
we must honestly acknowledge them.

But our judgment will be somewhat different
if we fix our eyes upon certain literary phenomena
of that period. That writings should be pseudo-
nymous, be put forth under another name, was
then not so uncommon as it is to-day, and was by
no means infrequent. In the time just subsequent
to the New Testament we find, for example,
a " Revelation of Peter" " a Gospel of Peter," " a
Discourse of Peter" — all of them pseudonymous
works. We have the same phenomenon in the
domain of Judaism. All the numerous apocalypses,
that is, revelations which there were written in
this time, do not appear under the name of
their actual author, but under a name famous of
yore — Enoch, Moses, Isaiah, Ezra, Daniel. But
also in the sphere of the heathen educated world
there are analogous facts. For example, under
the name of Pythagoras dozens of treatises were

38

THE PAULINE EPISTLES

published in those centuries. These facts show us
that that time in this respect had different ideas
from our own. The large number of such pseudo-
nymous works would otherwise not be intelligible.
A correct judgment of a period is only then pos-
sible if we measure it by its own moral standard.
This whole literary procedure, therefore, means
something different from what it would mean to-
day. And consequently it is not right to brand
such pseudonymous works, apart from special
cases, with the moral stigma of forgeries. Plainly
the authors of the many Jewish apocalypses
did not regard themselves as literary forgers.
Nay, the teaching which was put into the mouth
of a revered teacher of past time is traced back to
him by a kind of pious devotion. It was considered
that his thoughts agreed with the author's, and by
this means he sought to increase their weight, and
so he put them forth under such authority.

It is not a theological vagary to account for
the matter thus. Philologists in their own depart-
ment judge in the same way. They declare that
it is absurd to call Plato a forger because he put
things into the mouth of Socrates which he never
uttered, or to inveigh against the neo- Pytha-
goreans as deceivers because they put forth their
teaching under the name of Pythagoras. It
cannot, therefore, be said at all that a pseudo-
nymous religious treatise loses its religious value
on account of the question of authorship. Under

39

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

certain circumstances it may be more valuable
than a genuine one.

But now what are the grounds on which the
composition of these five epistles by Paul is
doubted ? On this just a few observations. The
Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, at first sight,
gives without doubt the impression of genuineness.
But if we look closer, we find quite surprising
agreements with the First Epistle to the Thessa-
lonians. The same thoughts, the same terms are
repeated and often quite closely in the same place.
Only one section, the prophecy on Antichrist, is
excepted. Otherwise the similarities go so far
that we receive the impression of an imitation,
or a copy. And we find it difficult to believe that
Paul would have written the same letter which
only shortly previously he had sent to the church.

The case is similar with the Epistle to the
EPHESIANS. It is so like the Epistle to the Colos-
sians that only the assumption which regards it
as a kind of working over and extension of the
Epistle to the Colossians explains everything.
To this other reasons may be added. The phrases
and the thoughts deviate markedly from the
genuine epistles of Paul. The author speaks of
the " holy " apostles, which Paul never would have
done, and the whole piece is completely im-
personal in a way that in a Pauline epistle is
without example. It is in truth no real epistle,
but a kind of sermon in the form of a letter.
40

THE PAULINE EPISTLES

Besides, the words of the salutation, " To the
saints which are in Ephesus," which gave rise to
its name as " the Epistle to the Ephesians," are
not found in the original text.

The case is the clearest of all, anyhow, in regard
to the so-called PASTORAL EPISTLES, i.e. the epistles
to TIMOTHY and TITUS. The first who maintained
that the First Epistle to Timothy was not authentic
was no less a person than Schleiermacher.

These three epistles have a decided ecclesiastical
tone. First, they argue against certain false
teachers ; and then next they treat of the proper
choice and conduct of certain ecclesiastical officers.
Finally, they give varied directions about the
wellbeing of the church, e.g. the conduct of
divine worship.

In these epistles we meet with points which
make it evident that the origin of these epistles is
not from Paul ; at the most, we may allow that
they contain a few small genuine remains of
Pauline memoranda or letters. The internal data
make it at once difficult to find a place for them,
in what is known to us of the life of Paul. In
many respects the relations which are presupposed
betv/een Paul and his disciples, Timothy and
Titus, are surprising and full of contradictions.
As Titus, for example, is thought of as in Crete,
he must be better acquainted with it than Paul
himself. And yet Paul just describes the false
teachers to him as if Titus knew nothing of them

41

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

at all. If the phraseology is surprising in the
Epistle to the Ephesians, the language, style, and
statements of the Pastoral Epistles are entirely
different from those of the epistles of S. Paul. In
the doctrine there are some echoes of Paul, but
the main impression is that of divergence. It is
a sincere, simple Christianity which they set forth,
but there is an absence of the depth of the Pauline
thought, and this Christianity has already gained
an orthodox flavour. Hatred of heretics is al-
ready manifest and just as plainly traceable as
zeal for correctness of belief.

Criticism, however, does not rest content with
collecting the characteristics which exclude Pauline
authorship. The judgment, an epistle is not by
Paul, properly speaking, is only the settlement
of a preliminary question. Criticism has not
merely to say No, but it ought if at all possible to
advance to an affirmative ; it ought to ascertain
what the circumstances are out of which such
writings actually arose.

In these epistles that is substantially possible, al-
though we do not know the authors. They plainly
set us in a period when the organisation of the
Church is far more developed than can have
been the case in the apostolic period. And just
as plainly they show us the Church already at
war with its opponents, which gave her so much
trouble for the most part in the second century.
That is the so-called Gnosticism, i.e. the tendency

THE PAULINE EPISTLES

which threatened to undermine the Faith of the
Church arising from a sort of philosophy and
speculation, and largely also by the assumption
that Christ's physical life was merely an appear-
ance. The false teachers who are combated in
these epistles are Gnostics. In order to overcome
them these epistles w^ere mainly written, pre-
sumably not until the beginning of the second
century, perhaps half a century after the death
of Paul.

The Epistle to the Ephesians and the Second
Epistle to the Thessalonians were probably writ-
ten somewhat earlier. We are not in a position
to know how the author of the Epistle to the
Ephesians came to enlarge and work over the
Epistle to the Colossians. On the other hand,
it is possible to show a definite motive for the
Second Epistle to the Thessalonians. It arose
from the excitement enkindled by the idea that
the last day was now already at hand. This
excitement it is designed to allay by teaching
that Christ cannot possibly come again until the
Antichrist arise, who must first appear, and this
is yet a hindrance. The deepest and most
important of these unauthentic epistles is the
Epistle to the Ephesians.

On a review, then, we may be permitted to say
that precisely the finest, greatest, and most
important epistles which the New Testament
contains bearing the name of Paul must, with full

43

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

confidence, be allowed to be trustworthy, genuine,
original documents of the earliest Christianity.
They do indeed teach us only isolated facts on
the life and the historical personality of Jesus,
but they give us, with all their gaps, the material
in order to gain a really correct idea of the char-
acter, and the facts of the earliest Christianity on
the soil of heathendom, and they bring to us one
of the greatest personalities of religious history
into intimate acquaintance, because we hear him
speak always in his own words. Greater than
Paul is, of course, the Master for whom he seeks
to prepare the way. More important than the
epistles of Paul must, therefore, those writings be
which tell us of Jesus, namely, the gospels.

44

II

THE GOSPELS

IN the development of the teaching of the
Church in the past the gospels (the Gospel
of John, of course, excepted) have not by any
means been the most influential. They have not
been for the theologians of various periods the
most important books of the New Testament.
Even Luther himself rather put in the background
the first three gospels. For him the foundation
book of the New Testament was the Epistle to
the Romans, with its little pendant, the Epistle
to the Galatians. But on Christianity as a whole,
on the lay-world of the Church, the gospels, and
especially the first three, have continually exer-
cised a quite special fascination. Why ? Because
they not merely taught of Jesus, but present a view,
a coloured picture of Him, which far more im-
pressively speaks to the imagination, and to
immediate feeling, than any formal propositions,
and any mere instruction. In modern times this
interest could not but greatly increase the more
there was found in Jesus a real and wholly human
personality ; and, at the present moment, wide

45

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

circles of theologians assign a foremost place of
importance to the gospels over all other writings
of the New Testament. We may even assert
that to-day something exists which did not exist
previously, viz. a yearning for the true, the
historical life-picture of the man Jesus ; and the
keen criticism which has been employed on the
facts of the gospel narrative has not lessened this
desire, for many indeed rather increased it.

We may regard the gospels as the first be-
ginnings of a Christian literature, since the idea of
literature as applied to the epistles of S. Paul does
not appear to us to be a proper one. Although
the gospels, first of all, found their readers in ever
so narrow a circle, they made their appearance
before the world in the way that is characteristic
of literary productions. If there had been an
art of printing at that time, it is safe to say that
they would have appeared not as manuscripts,
but as printed books. Only the term literature
must not awaken too exalted ideas. So far as the
literature of the world was concerned at that time,
these writings were of no importance to begin with.
And, on the other hand, a secular literature existed
— with its distinct forms, Drama, Epic, Science,
Compendiums, Dialogues, Oratory, etc. — but not
for Christianity. It is not until perhaps about
the middle of the second century that Christianity
begins to employ these forms of secular literature.

Nevertheless, we might ask whether biographical
46

THE GOSPELS

works, as they were then composed, did not
give an impulse to the writing of our gospels,
or afford a type for the character of their recital.
As a matter of fact, that must, however, probably
be denied. This literary form of the gospels is
rather a product of the Christian Church itself,
and sprang out of its natural needs. Within the
Christian circle it doubtless quickly acquired
special -favour, and dominated Christianity. The
best proof of this is the fact that a great number
of gospels existed, and not simply four. A part
of these writings did not arise, of course, until
a much later period than our gospels. They are
those works in which in particular the history of the
infancy, and then also the history of the passion,
and even the so-called descent into Hades, are
depicted in completely legendary form, and which,
with their fables and (in part ludicrously ex-
aggerated) miracles, must be called Christian
romances. We entirely ignore these. But there
were other gospels which stand proportionately
closer to the rest, and which in character show
much affinity with them. We have a series of
fragments of a quite ancient gospel of the Hebrews,
which must have had some relationship to our
Matthew, but certainly also exhibited great
differences ; further a few fragments of a gospel
according to the Egyptians, which, therefore, was
once used in Egypt. Somewhat more than a
decade ago there was found in an Egyptian tomb

47

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

a considerable fragment of a gospel which purports
to be by Peter, and which relates the history of
the passion and the resurrection. The gospel
citations of the Martyr Justin, who about the
middle of the second century wrote an apology or
defence of Christianity, cannot be satisfactorily
accounted for from our gospels, and appear,
therefore, to necessitate the conclusion that he used
a gospel unknown to us. A number of years ago
there were again found in Egypt some few logia
of Jesus, and in the same locality quite recently
others were discovered. They must therefore
have belonged, if not to an actual gospel, yet at
least to a writing which stands in close relationship
to the gospel literature. All these writings in my
judgment must be put earlier than our four gospels.
But there must also have been lost gospels which
were just as old as or older than our gospels or most
of them. Luke says in the short preface with
which he introduces his book that many before
him had made the attempt to compose a narrative
of the life of Jesus. Now John was not then
written, and Luke probably did not know our
Matthew. But if he had known him, then he
would not have used the expression " many" if
Matthew and Mark had then been the only gospels
extant. To this account agree also the conclusions
to which the criticism of the gospels leads and has
led. Our gospels presuppose the existence of one
older gospel at the least.
48

THE GOSPELS

It is of importance as to our conception of the
four gospels that these facts should be made
clear in advance. The question is not one of
four single writings which never had their like ;
but of four examples of a widespread class, and
to this I add of four links in a chain of development.
For a development with considerable modifications
may be plainly perceived in this literature. And
therefore the gospel writings which fall later than
our gospels are by no means valueless. The lay-
man will of course only put the one main question,
Do such gospels teach us anything reliable about
Jesus ? And if this question must perchance be
answered in the negative, he will deem the matter
of no further interest. But the expert knows
that the gospels are not merely sources for the
actual life of Jesus, but also documents which
illustrate the gradual development and change
in the conception of that life. And so for him a
later production may be very important, if it
shows surprising alterations in the repetition of
the sayings of Jesus or the stories of Him. And
generally the more material is presented to us for
comparison, the clearer shall we be able to recognise
the style, character, and value of the New Testa-
ment gospels.

Let us turn now especially to these four gospels
of the New Testament, the so-called canonical
gospels. Here we must at once, as a preliminary,
make a sharp division — the gospels of Matthew,

E 49

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

Mark, and Luke stand on the one side and John
on the other side. For nearly related as are
the first three gospels to one another, so different
is the fourth that it is a writing of an essentially
different pattern. Of this even the illiterate
reader of the Bible has at once an immediate per-
ception. Science is accustomed to denote the
three first gospels with a common name, as the
synoptic gospels, or shortly the synoptics. This
name expresses their striking affinity. For it
affirms that the text of these three writings, for
the most part, can and must be considered to-
gether, because they formally invite comparison.
These synoptics we cannot therefore merely con-
sider individually. That, of course, must also
be done ; but with that there must be united
an examination which embraces the whole
group.

As historical works the synoptics have a truly
individual stamp, and it is at once obvious that
the question is as to three sister writings. It
immediately strikes us that their account only
stretches over a small part of the life of Jesus.
Mark relates nothing of the whole period up to
the public appearance of Jesus. Matthew and
Luke then, of course, give histories of the birth
of Jesus, but are silent on the whole period of His
youth, and His growth to manhood, apart from
the short narration of Jesus in the temple at
twelve years old given by Luke. The mode of

50

THE GOSPELS

presentation itself is in general characterised by
interchange of word and history. The historical
narrative, however, consists essentially of episodes,
we might say anecdote, if this word had not a
secondary meaning which did not originally belong
to it. It is almost solely vignettes, miracles, brief
conversations, single scenes ; on the other hand,
there is no general development, no great lines of
presentation, no searching characterisation of
persons, no attention to the connection of occur-
rences. A stronger chain of connection between
details is most clearly obvious in the history of
the passion of Jesus. A broader picture is painted
here.

We must not suppose that the evangelists were
merely fishers and handicraftsmen. They were
in a way literary men who as such belonged to the
more cultured members of the Church. At least
that is true of the author of Mark, more of that of
Matthew, and especially of that of the Gospel of
Luke. The latter prefaces his work with an
introduction such as we find usual with educated
men in the literature of the period, in which he
speaks of predecessors, mentions the order of
events, is interested in chronology, in short, he
makes it clear that he is following a certain
historical plan. Of course, this is not to be denied
of the other two : their intention is not merely to
preach about Christ, but to tell of Him in narrative
form. But nothing could be more perverse than

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

to regard these authors as modern writers of
history, and here I am not at all thinking merely
of learned and trained historians, but of popular
story-writers. It is in fact to be sharply em-
phasised that the evangelists do not tell their
story merely as a story, but that they rather
pursue as their first intention practical and
edifying purposes, Luke not excepted. They do
not, as the phrase is, write objectively, or as
personally uninterested, or as mere chroniclers ;
they write for believers and as believers. The
Gospel of John is easily put in contrast with the
synoptics, the former depicts the Christ of faith
and the latter that of history. In this contrast
there is, no doubt, a certain truth, but Matthew
and Mark and Luke depict for us most certainly the
Christ who is the object of faith, whether this
coincides with the Jesus of history or not. It
cannot be made too plain that these men intend
to write books of edification, their writings are
designed to win men to Christ, to teach about Him;
they are intended for those who are already in-
structed in the Christian faith ; and meant
perchance to be read in public worship. In
short, they are intended to preach Christ. He who,
for this reason, supposes that they proceed like
proper historians with the same painstaking
accuracy and care in the arrangement of the
material, in the disposition of the accounts which
come to hand, in the confirmation of details, puts

52

THE GOSPELS

forward false claims, and employs an absurd
criterion.

It is extraordinarily difficult for him who
is not intimately acquainted with the synoptics
to consider them apart. When closely regarded
they have with all their similarity each their
own special point of view. In order that the
names Matthew, Mark, Luke may not be to us
merely names, I should like to call special at-
tention by a few touches to the specialty which
is clearly manifest in each.

I begin with MARK, the shortest gospel. Mark
consists quite predominantly of narration, that is,
he is, in comparison with Matthew and Luke,
poor in discourses ; apart from some parables and
a longer discourse on the events to precede the
second coming of Jesus, he only supplies us
throughout with isolated sayings. The style of
this evangelist is singularly fresh and lively ; his
disposition is more original, and he is less elaborate
than either of the other two. It is striking that
Mark in his narrative has many minute details
of events more than the others, and presents the
situation with a richer colour and in livelier form.
Among the miracles of Jesus which the evangelist
numerously narrates, there stands in bold relief
a specially significant class, the healing of the so
called demoniacs, i.e. those possessed, or, as we
should say, those suffering from mental disturb-
ances. The evangelist appears to have had a

53

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

quite special interest in these miracles. Besides,
the gospel has probably not been preserved to us in
its entirety. The conclusion of the gospel as we
read it in our Bibles — i.e. the last twelve verses — is
without doubt not genuine, as, in fact, these verses
are wanting in the oldest manuscripts. Now the
gospel scarcely ended with the words which
precede the unauthentic and later superadded
verses. We expect that at least another appear-
ance of the risen Christ in Galilee will be related.
The genuine conclusion is therefore presumably
lost, possibly was designedly omitted because it
did not suit the ideas of later readers, and is
now replaced by an account which has been com-
piled from several other accounts of the resur-
rection.

The Gospel of MATTHEW has been the most
influential and the most popular among the three
synoptics. And it deserves this popularity also
on account of its fine arrangement of material,
and the excellent structure of the whole. Dis-
courses and narratives are interchanged in fine
proportion with one another, and the discourses
of Jesus have the more striking effect, as they
appear in great separate portions ; the case is
indeed different in S. Luke ; he gives scarcely less
discourses, but the sections and pieces are more
and shorter, and are distributed over the whole
book. As Luke, so Matthew contains a history
of the childhood and a genealogy of Jesus, but is

54

THE GOSPELS

precisely in these sections quite distinct from that
of Luke.

Matthew gives a series of the logia of Jesus
which have a sharp Jewish or Judaic- Christian
tone. For example, the apostles are expressly
forbidden to go to the heathen and Samaritans
(x. 5), the inviolable value of the law is em-
phasised (v. 17) ; and so it is said : " Pray that
your flight be not" — in the coming distress — "in
the winter or on the Sabbath " (xxiv. 20), in which
saying there is the implication that the law forbids
a long journey on the Sabbath. Such expres-
sions have led to the untenable opinion that this
gospel was intended specially for Jewish Christians,
just as there are other phrases which have quite a
different tone, which, in fact, as plainly as possible
say that the Jewish people are not privileged, and
that the call of the gospel is for all peoples (xxviii.
19 f.). Here there is a contradiction which can
only be explained by assuming that the author
found the one view present in another writing,
and preserved it in using the text, whereas the
other view represents his own opinion. We are
therefore hereby led to the supposition that at
least one source lies at the base of the gospel.

The author of this gospel is thus, so to speak,
the theologian among the evangelists ; he shows
in particular an intimate acquaintance with the
Old Testament, and it is one of his foremost cares
to demonstrate that in the facts of the history of

55

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

Jesus Old Testament prophecies had been fulfilled.
Consequently the frequency of the formulas,
" this was done that it might be fulfilled," " as it
is written." This so-called prophetic proof had,
of course, a generally powerful influence for the
early Church. In Matthew it appears especially
in its classic form.

In his preface LUKE has, as we have already said,
particularly emphasised his striving for accuracy,
that is, completeness, and for a correct sequence of
narration. In both respects he apparently desired
to outstrip his many predecessors, for each later
evangelist wished naturally to make his gospel
somehow better than the previous ones. We may
now also observe that Luke has not quite for-
gotten this programme in the gospel. For ex-
ample, he transposes many narratives of his
predecessors ; he also endeavours occasionally
to bring the great world-events into connection
with his story, and so he names at one time C«esar
Augustus (ii. i), another time the Emperor
Tiberius (iii. 2), and other rulers. Criticism
cannot, of course, assert that the alterations of
Luke are really improvements in the sequence of
the story. The great journey, e.g., which he
inserts in chapters ix. to xviii., is as such not
imaginable — though this is not saying that the
accounts are worthless which he puts into this
frame.

We shall, however, find that the superiority of

56

THE GOSPELS

Luke consists in quite other points. This evan-
gelist's method of narration is in a special degree
thoughtful and attractive. Some of the most
impressive features of the gospel history belong
to him alone; e.g. that Jesus " looked on7' Peter
after his denial (xxii. 61) ; and he is fond, in the
parables which he records, of letting the persons
concerned speak for themselves, recording senti-
ments which lay bare their very soul — " Work I
cannot, to beg I am ashamed," which, e.g., the
unjust steward says. " I will arise and go to my
father," in the prodigal son (xv. 18). In such
traits we may really recognise a certain addition
belonging to the style of Luke, for Matthew relates
the parables in a somewhat different way.

Jesus appears in this gospel in a quite special
manner as the friend of the lost and of those
classes despised by the Jew, " publicans and
sinners " (as it is said) ; but at the same time as
the enemy of the rich. And this is an evidently
plain characteristic of this gospel. Nowhere are
riches so sharply judged as here, and nowhere is
poverty placed higher or charitableness which de-
prives itself of its possessions. The critic accord-
ingly asks whether here the evangelist presents the
thoughts of Jesus with real accuracy, or whether,
perhaps unconsciously, they are coloured by his
own ideas. The conditions of life in Palestine did
not, it seems, so closely concern Luke as Mark and
Matthew, possibly he did not assume much interest

57

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

in his readers, at any rate in Luke the discourses
of Jesus do not possess that local Jewish colouring
which is clear in Matthew. I mean by this that
the antagonism of Jesus to the Pharisees does not
appear so obviously.

As an eye-witness of the life of Jesus, not one
of the three makes any definite claim. None of
them narrates in such a way as to imply that he
was speaking of his own experiences. Not one
speaks of his relation to Jesus, or uses in his story
the personal " we." Luke, however, positively
disclaims being an eye-witness, and belongs to a
later generation.

Besides such differences as I have thus dealt
with, it is now proper to fix our attention
chiefly ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE
THREE BOOKS. This is, in fact, most striking.
The question is not merely as to the general
similarity of the method of presentation or the
order and succession of short descriptions. And
not merely that the whole framework of the
narrative is the same : commencing with John
the Baptist, the baptism, the temptation, the
continuation of the history in Galilee and the
journey to Jerusalem, the conclusion v/ith the
particularly detailed account in all three of the
passion, death, and resurrection. More surprising
is, at any rate, the relationship in the choice of
material. It is immediately obvious that Jesus
in the period which the evangelists depict did

THE GOSPELS

more and said more than they record on their few
pages. How does it happen, then, that the con-
tent of the material so preponderantly agrees ?
What all three, or at least two, evangelists have
in common amounts to two-thirds of the whole
content. The similarity in the order of the
different narratives is in addition very marked.
Whole groups of accounts appear in two or three
in the same order. That is not at all explained
by saying that this is because they give the real
succession of events. How, then, could it be
explained that the order frequently is so divergent?
It is just this difference that makes the partial
likeness so surprising. Finally it is besides
notorious that the agreements, not only in the
sayings of Jesus, but also in the narratives, extend
very largely to verbal agreement. The exact
sameness of the words is, moreover, worthy of
note. For Jesus did not speak Greek, the language
in which the evangelists wrote. His mother-
speech was rather Aramaic, a dialect related to
Syriac, wrhich had then superseded Hebrew in
Palestine. Since, then, the words of Jesus lie
before us only in a translation, the agreement to
the smallest details is doubly surprising.

We now stand in the presence of the problem to
which research has addressed itself from the close
of the eighteenth century until to- day with really
eager zeal, and which is known as the synoptic
problem. How is this far-reaching relationship in

59

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

content, in arrangement, and verbal agreement,
to which correspond the equally remarkable
differences, to be accounted for ? or, how are we
to explain this peculiar mixture of likeness and
unlikeness ?

Accident is no explanation, for the similarities
cannot be accidental. The doctrine of the divine
inspiration of the gospels also yields no explana-
tion. For in this way we do not comprehend the
differences. Literary criticism alone can bring
us a solution.

Research has struck out manifold and different
paths. The thought is, of course, obvious that
one of the evangelists used the text of the others.
Next to this the supposition is started that our
evangelists might have drawn from one or several
lost gospels, or possibly from various smaller
sketches and portions of narrative. Lessing al-
ready developed the fundamental ideas of this
hypothesis. Finally oral tradition has been brought
in, that is, that the frequent repetition of the
words and acts of Jesus gradually assumed the set
form of a narrative. The strong agreement may,
it is said, thus be accounted for.

Later investigation no longer allows us to
believe that one of these hypotheses alone leads
to the goal, and least of all the idea of oral tradition.
It holds that it is needful to accept what is right
in all these attempts, and in this way it has
reached definite results. Of course we cannot
60

THE GOSPELS

speak of absolute agreement among critics, but
a preponderating majority agree at least in several
fundamental points, and these may in fact pass
as a real result of prolonged labour.

The first of these is that Mark was a source of
Luke and Matthew. As a matter of fact, there
are the strongest grounds for this. I point out
some of these. If Mark had used the other
gospels, then we cannot understand why he left
out so much of their material ; if, on the other
hand, Mark is the base, then the two successors
incorporated almost his whole gospel ; but why
they left out some portions is altogether capable
of a valid explanation. Further, it follows that the
sequence of the Marcan narrative lies at the base
of the others. They diverge frequently from this
sequence, but ever keep on returning to it. In
addition it is in favour of this that Mark gives no
history of the childhood. The histories of the
childhood in Matthew and Mark, poetic as they
are (and precisely because they possess this
poetic charm), are to be regarded throughout as
myth — the appearance of angels marks them as
such — and they belong undoubtedly, as unfettered
investigation generally acknowledges, to the latest
portions of the gospel tradition.

If, now, Mark previously read Matthew or

Luke, then he would hardly have omitted these

stories, which agreed with the belief of the time.

But in detail also we may abundantly recognise

61

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

that Mark at least offers for the most part the
oldest text. For example, in the baptism of
Jesus Matthew relates of a refusal at first on the
part of John the Baptist : " I should be baptised
of thee, and comest thou to me ?" This is not
in Mark. But he did not omit this, but Matthew
added it. Offence, that is, began to be taken with
the fact that Jesus was baptised by John, because
this did not appear compatible with the sinlessness
of Jesus, and also it was feared to subordinate
Jesus to John the Baptist. This objection was the
cause of the addition in Matthew. If John, how-
ever, said himself that Jesus stood in no need of
baptism, then the doubtfulness of the procedure
was removed. Another example. " Good Master,"
says the rich young ruler to Jesus, " what shall I do
to inherit eternal life ? " To this Jesus replied :
" Why callest thou me good ? None is good save
God only." So Mark (x. 17 f.). In Matthew the
epithet "good" is not there. It says: " Master,
what good thing must I do that I may inherit
eternal life ? " To this Jesus replies : " Why
askest thou me after the good ? One is good "
(xix. 16). This difference can scarcely be otherwise
explained than that the text of Mark, " Why callest
thou me good ? " appeared questionable, and
consequently was changed.

The second great result of criticism is as follows :
besides Mark another source lies at the base of the
gospels of Matthew and Luke — in the portions
62

THE GOSPELS

which are not taken from Mark and in which
again these two are in such an extraordinary
agreement. The question essentially concerns a
great portion of the sayings of Jesus. This
source must be a book lost to us. The usual
designation of this is a collection of sayings
or logia. And it is conjectured that it was a
kind of catechism or lesson book composed of
sayings and words of Jesus which offered rules
such as the Church needed for her life, spirituality,
mission, and her hope for the future. We still
possess the content of this source in good part, in
just those words of Jesus, which Matthew and
Mark have in common, and also possibly in the
one or other portions which are found in only one
of them ; of course it must be taken into account
that they have been used by each evangelist in a
different form. But would it not be much simpler
to explain that common element by assuming that
Matthew used Luke or Luke used Matthew ? Of
course this method has been attempted, but it
does not lead to the goal.

A third and final result may be thus formulised
— for the portions which Luke has alone, and in the
same way also for those which only Matthew
presents, one or several sources must be assumed,
which we no longer possess. Here and there both
evangelists probably drew from oral traditions too.
This completion of the two other main propositions
is needful, since it is wholly impossible that Luke

63

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

invented the accounts which he alone has. To
these accounts belong a series of the finest parables
of Jesus, all of which have a claim to be reckoned
as part of the best tradition of the gospels.

It is, of course, generally correct to say that a
certain part of the accounts is due to the evan-
gelists themselves. In the main they hand down
what they have received. But they themselves
shape the tradition variously, make additions,
abridgments, and unite according to their own
judgment one source with the other. The proof
of this is quite plain in our gospels. Even where
Matthew and Luke only follow Mark, we are
aware of frequent alterations, and Mark did not
act differently from the rest.

By all these explanations it is not intended
to awaken the impression that everything, or
even all that is of importance, is explained.
What are the sources of Mark ? Did he, too, use
written sources ? Possibly even the collection of
logia ? Is our Mark the oldest form of this gospel ?
or was there an older, an original Mark ? What
was the real shape of the logia ? So I might
continue. On all such points the battle of opinions
still wavers hither and thither. Will it ever cease ?
Shall we ever be able to assert that we have
solved the whole synoptic problem ? We may
well doubt this, for we have too many unknown
elements to deal with. And if the mounds of
Egypt, the ruins of Asia Minor may still afford
64

THE GOSPELS

us many a find to rejoice the heart of the expert
inquirer into the origin of the gospels, there is
but little probability that the very writings from
which our gospels were drawn will ever see the
light.

Meanwhile that the results attained are in any
case of the highest importance should be easily
evident to every one. I insist only on two points.
First, that the historical importance of the Gospel
of Mark rises considerably higher if it was the
common source of the two others. If these
drew from Mark, then, their witness just where
they are dependent on Mark is of no independent
value. That is, in the greatest portion of the
narrative material properly so called. And we
have, therefore, in this case not three witnesses for
an event, but only one, that is Mark. The
credibility of this writer thus becomes a funda-
mental question. That is to say for all that relates
to the course, the development in the life of Jesus,
we are dependent on Mark, because here both his
successors rest wholly on him. Secondly, it is also
of high importance to note that a collection of
the sayings of Jesus forms the basis of Matthew
and Luke. For thus we gain for the sayings which
are in question an older witness than Matthew and
Luke themselves. And in this way the historical
importance of Matthew and Luke is raised above
that of Mark, since Mark does not contain these
sayings at all.

F 65

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

There remains to us another problem. It is of
consequence to consider the gospels in connection
with the whole development which the tradition of
the life of Jesus underwent. We must consider
and historically conceive the gospels as stages in
this development. This leads us, then, at once
to the question as to the historical value of these
accounts, a question to which this work certainly
can only do very incomplete justice.

Of course this development, as far as it lies
beyond our synoptics, is to us in great obscurity.
But we can from these arrive at certain a posteriori
conclusions, and \ve know that in fact all human
tradition is dependent on certain laws.

The moment after the death of Jesus, when the
tradition about Jesus was still quite rich and
fresh, indicates the starting - point. Of course,
even then many a valuable piece of information
had already been forgotten. For obliviscence
commences just exactly the moment there is
anything to recollect. But it is certain that
the eye-witnesses, who had accompanied Jesus,
could then relate infinitely much about Him,
and that these recollections stood before their
eyes with singular clearness. Now the first propa-
gation of recollections was in all respects free
and various. Naturally they had further chiefly
to do with single sayings, instructions, and
individual narratives. Generally speaking, no
question was raised as to a total view of the life
66

THE GOSPELS

of Jesus ; certain main facts were known, and
this was sufficient. That long discourses like
the Sermon on the Mount could be verbally
retained in recollection is improbable. The con-
sideration of our gospels themselves teaches us
that the long discourses are composed mostly
out of shorter pieces or even single sayings.
On a designed retention of recollections no one
thought, just because the speedy advent of the
Lord was expected.

Then the tradition would become gradually
poorer. The eye-witnesses died or were dis-
persed. In this way much was lost. Next
of importance is the fact that the tradition was
early transplanted to a soil where it was not
indigenous, that is outside Palestine. In such
a transplanting much always falls away ; es-
pecially is it the case that those who dwell at a
distance are not at home in the local and personal
conditions with which those on the original spot
were naturally familiar. They have no interest
in them. In this way the idea of the real events
grows pale.

There is one thing more. The tradition did
not remain a mere matter of personal, loving
remembrance, but obtained a special significance
for the life of the Church. At an early date the
words of Jesus became, as we already see in Paul,
looked upon as standard rules for the Church.
That which was important for the interests of
67

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

their faith and life was naturally held to with
special steadfastness ; particularly the words of
the Lord were more firmly fixed in the mind,
and perhaps also isolated sayings brought to-
gether into connection. On the other hand, how-
ever, that which was purely personal, and more
occasional, fell in the tradition into the back-
ground. Of the events in the life of Jesus those
especially were passed on to others which might
illustrate the work of Jesus as Saviour and
helper, or had otherwise a didactic importance.
For the chronology, the relation of Jesus to the
people, His private intercourse with His disciples,
His relations with individual persons or whole
groups, the interest was small. Naturally the
stories of Jesus were repeated in a free manner
with all the pleasure which the relation and
repetition to others of such glorious things would
afford.

The earliest gospel writings, then, are a land-
mark in this development. What do they im-
port as to the tradition ? First of all, the very
important fact that now a portion of the recollec-
tions became fixed so that it could be no longer
lost. But besides this another is not to be over-
looked, that is, that with the origin of the gospels
a further impoverishment of the tradition took
place. That sounds strange, and yet it is right.
When the first writings of this kind arose there
was doubtless much free oral tradition current.
68

THE GOSPELS

But only that which was collected in the receptacle
of these writings was retained, while the remainder
was in the main lost, and that just because written
gospels are now extant. For these now henceforth
become the proper storehouse of the recollections
of Jesus, and to them those turn who wish to hear
about Jesus. The free recollections lose their
significance. Facts corroborate this view. Of
credible stories outside the gospels scarcely any-
thing has been retained in the old Church writings.
Of course there are sayings of Jesus which have
been handed down which do not find a place in
the gospels, that is, the so-called Agrapha, i.e.
utterances which are not in the gospel accounts.
We have a considerable number of them. Some
may very well be genuine, as, e.g., the saying :
" Be a good banker " ; perhaps also that fine
word which Jesus is said to have addressed to
a man whom He saw working on the Sabbath
day : " Man, if thou knowest what thou doest thou
art blessed, but if thou knowest not thou art
condemned, and a transgressor of the law."
But it is quite likely that there are only few such
words which, as genuine, can come into question.

Now at what particular time did these earliest
gospels originate ? There is no agreement as to
the date of our Mark. Some put him in the time
immediately before the destruction of Jerusalem
in the years A.D. 65-70, therefore quite more than
thirty years after the death of Jesus, but many
69

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

ten years later or more. The collection of logia
perhaps arose somewhat earlier, and a good many
experts trace them back to the Apostle Matthew,
and assume that on this account the name of the
apostle passed over to our gospel according to
S. Matthew, just because it incorporated the
collection of sayings. For our Matthew is cer-
tainly not by the apostle of that name. Against
this there are several reasons, among others, the
large dependency on Mark. And this work might,
just like that of Luke, not have originated until
about the end of the first century.

In the time mentioned — in the last three or
four decades of the first century, therefore, so
far as we see, the first and foundation settlement
of the tradition was completed. That the de-
velopment did not stop here we have already seen.
For there now follows one gospel after another,
not merely the Gospel of John, but also that to
the Hebrews, the Egyptians, the Gospel of Peter,
and then the fanciful productions of a later
period. We cannot be surprised that the in-
creasing impoverishment in genuine traditions
has as its accompaniment a growing increase in
unauthentic ones.

All human tradition implies alteration. If
we are to understand the gospels, then we must
have an eye for the transforming effect of tradition.
Luther's saying at the Diet of Worms, at which
half Europe listened : " Here I stand, I can do no
70

THE GOSPELS

other," even in the year 1521, in which it was
spoken, was extant in three forms. Surely
according to such analogies we must expect that
the narratives of the life and teaching of Jesus
underwent changes which are of importance, in
the long course until they came into the gospels.
Our gospels themselves supply us with the original
evidence of this. Even in the decades which may
have intervened between their several origins we
see how alterations now small and trifling, now
more comprehensive, were effected. The tradi-
tion gradually grows to completion, receives
elucidation in the way it was understood, it receives
also designedly, of course in the best faith, cor-
rection when an expression appeared disturbing,
when perchance it did not seem suitable to Jesus,
or no longer corresponded to the belief of a later
period. Nay, it may be shown that in the honest
conviction that Jesus must have said something
or related something, He is declared to have said
it. For example, those detailed prophecies on the
suffering, death, and resurrection in which there
is already deposited a little history of the passion
might have originated in the thought that surely
Jesus must have foreknown all.

If this, then, at this time is now plainly perceiv-
able, could, in the time which lies before the first
written gospels, the tradition have flowed on un-
changed ? This is an idea which has every prob-
ability against it. For as this history of the changes

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

before our gospels is in obscurity, only isolated
facts can be surmised from our gospels. But the
transformations in the first thirty or forty years
cannot have been insignificant.

Only we must not suppose that the development
could have altered all traditions proportionately.
That great teaching: " Judge not, that ye be not
judged," or that sharp incisive saying : " No man
can serve two masters." " Ye cannot serve God
and Mammon." Or that word of consolation :
" Be careful for nothing . . . your heavenly Father
knoweth that ye have need of all these things."
Such words were as true thirty, forty, fifty years
after the death of Jesus as at the time He spoke
them. They might be forgotten, but they would
scarcely be essentially changed ; or at the most
the phraseology. On the other hand, the altera-
tion must have been great on such points where
the ideas of the Church were greatly developed ;
above all, on the question of the person of Jesus,
that is, on His higher superhuman nature or the
significance of His death ; or, for example, on
the expectation of the future — will Jesus soon
come or delay long ? or on the question whether
the heathen were to have a share in the Christian
salvation, and more of the like. Here it was in
the long run quite impossible that the teaching
of Jesus, or the story of His life, should not have
responded to the quick forward-moving develop-
ment of the Christian beliefs of the Church ;
72

THE GOSPELS

possibly even be at variance with them. Hence
there was then started unperceived a work which
adapted the traditional picture of Jesus to the
interests of the beliefs of the particular time, so
as to be reconcilable with them.

Of course all this still does not help us to any
clear determination what and how much, then,
in our gospels can be regarded as genuine recollec-
tion, what and how much is later accretion. I
have already intimated that I cannot really solve
this widely comprehensive question in this work.
Not only because the space v/ould fail me, but be-
cause in doing this I should be overstepping my
subject. This sets before me the task of speaking
of the origin of the gospel writings. The question
as to credibility plainly goes beyond these limits.
Consequently on this point only a few observations
may be allowed.

The picture of the life of Jesus as it lies before
us in our gospels resembles a painting which has
been coloured over once, or perhaps more than
once, so as more or less to hide the original colours
and outlines. Even our Gospel of Mark, sad as
it may seem to us to say, in no way simply depicts
the life of Jesus as it was. It not merely contains
mythical features, such as the meeting of Jesus
with the Devil or the walking of Jesus on the sea,
the feeding of five thousand with but a little bread
and fish ; it also unquestionably shows definite dog-
matic conceptions. Jesus is no longer regarded as

73

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

simply^a man, but even as a divine being who could
do all things, and, for instance, accurately prophesy
the future and the details of His own sufferings.
Mark hardly knew very much of the development
of the life of Jesus. The sequence of his narrative
is scarcely the actual chronological one ; for he
arranges it for the most part according to the
relationship of the subject-matter. And on this
very account it is impossible for us to describe
more accurately the course of the life of Jesus.
For here we are quite dependent on Mark. Cer-
tainly most assume that in Mark the recollections
of the discourses of Peter have been used, but
these, then, in any case can only be found in a
portion of the narratives. The force of the facts
mentioned is not destroyed.

But on the other hand there can be no mistake
that in its various narratives there is found
much genuine tradition, whether this is to be
traced back to Peter or not. Besides this, many
accounts of miracles are not to be eliminated so
far as they concern miracles of healing. For it is
scarcely to be denied that Jesus possessed a gift
of healing, and this does not contradict historical
probability. For this kind of gift is found elsewhere.
Further, the scene of action in which the life of
Jesus was passed is still in many respects plainly
discernible. Certain narratives cannot have been
invented because their invention is inconceivable.
Peter was in the oldest Christianity almost

74

THE GOSPELS

the most considerable personage. Who would
have concocted the story of his denial, which
was to his prejudice ? Who can have devised the
sharp contrast in which Jesus appears in relation
to the Pharisees ? For this a later period could
have no longer any interest. But we may put
special confidence, e.g., in the sayings of Jesus, so
far as they comprehend the plain deep teaching
of the purest piety and morality ; the illuminating
clear parables, the short striking sayings, the
rules of life, which are so original in their form.
But besides all this a wholly definite image, which
cannot be confused with any other, the image of a
real personality not recognisable in every feature,
but still speaking to us with the force of reality,
exalted, majestic, subduing, great and pure, deep
and clear, serious and loving, strong and mild,
stands before us.

Yes, the picture of the life of Jesus has been
coloured over, and in many places strongly coloured
over, but the original colours everywhere shine
through the additional colouring. It is the task
of science, where it is at all possible, to remove
the superposed layers, and so far as it is possible
to unveil the genuine picture.

Hitherto I have kept silence on the Gospel of
S. John. Yet our reflections so far have set
forth much that is preparatory to the com-
prehension of this gospel. For John represents

75

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

a stage in advance of the Synoptics ; I mean not
in respect of value, but in development.

The strife of opinions has, as to this gospel,
turned quite preponderantly on the person of
the author. Is it the Apostle John, the son of
Zebedee or not ? And no question in this de-
partment has possibly been debated with greater
fervour. I must, however, say emphatically that
this is no way the single question of importance ;
just as important is the question as to the nature
and design of this treatise. And this very question
is of the greatest importance as bearing on the
question of authorship.

Before giving close attention to the gospel, a
word is needed on a preliminary question. It has
been frequently attempted to prove that it is a
composite book, and contains an older work,
elaborated by a later editor, and incorporated
with his own work. This attempt must be pro-
nounced a failure. This work is a work from one
mould, it is, in the words of a critic, like the seam-
less robe of Christ, about which it is possible to
cast lots, but which cannot be divided. For every-
where it betrays the same spirit and the same way
of presentation. One narrative certainly, as is
commonly acknowledged, did not originally stand
in the gospel, and in fact one which if we are not
altogether deluded rests on original recollection, the
pathetic history of the adulteress to whom Jesus
manifests His tenderness. In addition it may still
76

THE GOSPELS

be regarded as doubtful whether the last (2ist)
chapter is an original part of the gospel, or, as
many think, an addition by a later hand. The
end of the 2oth chapter indeed sounds just
like a formal conclusion : " And many other
signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his
disciples, which are not written in this book.
But these are written that ye may believe that
Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." Never-
theless, personally I accept even chapter xxi. as
originating with the same author as the rest,
even though it may have been written somewhat
later.

If we start with the Synoptics, then the whole
impression made by John is a completely different
one. There is not wanting matter in common,
as in the history of the passion, in the miracles, in
the story of John the Baptist. But the greatest
part of the synoptic material finds here no parallel.
And how much there is that is new given by this
evangelist ! His commencement, for instance, the
so-called prologue sounds so utterly different from
that of the synoptic style. It is an exposition
solemnly marching along of the " Word " as " with
God," and then as " made flesh." Then if we just
think of the conversation with Nicodemus, with
the Samaritan at the well, of the resurrection of
Lazarus, of the feet- washing. Nay, the whole
theatre of action of Jesus appears changed. In
the Synoptics it is predominantly completed in

77

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

Galilee, and then later on in Jerusalem. Here the
scene of action changes different times, in the
main Jesus appears in Judea and Jerusalem. It
gives the impression that He has touched Galilee
but very slightly.

But all this is insignificant compared with the
difference in the discourses. Save a few short
sayings it reminds us of scarcely anything of
the discourses of the Synoptics. All the words
concerning forgiveness, love of our enemies, of
serving, of the pride of the Pharisees, of the king-
dom of God, all the striking parables have wholly
disappeared. Instead of this we find an ex-
ceedingly great abundance of new discourses, all
of a quite different character, throughout quite
uniform, evolving a definite thread of thought,
and in them everything turns properly on one
theme, the person of Christ, and faith in Him ;
that He was with the Father before He came in
the flesh, that He therefore can witness of the
Father ; that He is one with the Father, on an
equality with Him ; that He can raise from the
dead, and judge mankind ; that He is the bread
of life, the way, the truth, and the life ; that the
world rejects Him, rejects the Father — such
thoughts meet us in ever new shapes. He who
for the first time actually apprehends this dis-
tinction from the three Synoptists can only be
in the highest degree surprised.

The comparison of the gospel with the Synoptics

78

THE GOSPELS

leads us on to those portions which both have in
common. In the first place one result is to see
that John is dependent on the others, and that
is most clearly seen in the history of the passion.
The similarities, e.g. in the sequence, are here
and elsewhere too great to be understood in the
absence of such assumption. Of course it is
possible to ask whether John is not the older,
but this view cannot be taken seriously. For we
everywhere see that John represents the later
stage of development. And this very thing is
full of instruction. I will not dwell on the
fact that John's accounts are marked by their
peculiar indefiniteness. We have enough indi-
vidual cases to make the judgment more definite.
There is, e.g., plainly perceptible a climax in the
accounts of miracles. Mark also speaks of a
resurrection, of the raising of the daughter of
Jairus immediately after her death. In John,
however, the raising of Lazarus follows after his
body has lain in the grave four days already, and
decomposition has commenced. The Synoptics
also relate cures of blindness, in John the blind
man is healed who was blind from birth, and more
of the same sort. Then there are some single
examples of transformations. The sentence in
which John the Baptist announces the coming
Messiah runs, e.g., " There cometh one mightier
than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not
worthy to stoop down and unloose " (Mark^i. 2).

79

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

In John it is similar (i. 27), but it says also :
" This is he of whom I said : After me cometh
a man which is preferred before me, for he was
before me " (i. 30). It is impossible to doubt
that the sayings of the Lord are the same, but
in John an idea has been super added which is
not found in Mark, the idea of the so-called pre-
existence, e.g. of His being with God before the
incarnation, and that is all the stranger as it is
pronounced at the very beginning by John the
Baptist. Mark represents how Jesus, when He
wishes to tell Peter that He must suffer, said :
" Get thee behind me, Satan " (viii. 35). This is
not found in the like scene in John. On the other
hand Jesus says of Judas Iscariot: " One of you
is a devil." We shall not be far out in the assump-
tion that it appeared to later readers questionable
that Christ should apply to Peter, this foremost
disciple, the epithet Satan, and that they deliber-
ated whether such a name must not in fact mean
Judas who treated Jesus so diabolically.

This relation of John to the synoptic narrative
is very important for any historical judgment on
the book, and its author. But the proper char-
acter, the nature of our writing is not made quite
clear in this way, and it is before all needful to
recognise this.

This is now the principal important result
which theological labour has gained, that this
gospel in its deepest core does not follow the design
80

THE GOSPELS

of relating the life of Jesus, but of giving teaching
concerning Him. This is indeed the true aim,
evident on every page, which the author sets before
him. The narrative must be regarded as the mere
drapery of the teaching.

The very narrative, especially the miracles,
shows us this in various ways. The miracles are
intended to illustrate the superhuman, divine
dignity of Jesus. For this reason are they related.
If, for example, the resurrection of Lazarus is
given, it is done for the purpose of illustrating the
proposition : "I am the resurrection and the
life/' which follows. Or the feeding of the five
thousand contains the teaching that " Christ is
the bread of life." But the matter becomes much
plainer still by the discourses and conversations in
the gospel. Here the teaching of Christ which the
author will proclaim is formally developed, and
expounded in ever new shapes and forms.

Of course it is impossible to gain the right point
of view so long as we disguise from ourselves the
knowledge which is essential to the comprehension
of these discourses. Briefly put, these discourses
are the author's own work. The Synoptics have
also probably here and there in some degree
shaped the discourses of Jesus, but in the main
they repeat the tradition. John also gives in his
narrative a good deal of tradition, although in later
form, but in the discourses at the most a few short
sayings can be regarded as traditional.
G 81

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

How do we make good such an assertion ?
First of all the Johannine discourses of Jesus are
in style, character, and content so different from
the Synoptics, that we cannot believe that one
and the same person spoke them. If Jesus dis-
coursed as He speaks in John, then we may safely
assert, He did not speak as the Synoptics make
Him. But it is doubtless they who give us the
right notion of the popular, crisp, striking method
of Jesus. Secondly, the content of the Johannine
discourses is of that kind that it already pre-
supposes a long development of the Christian
Church. This teaching of Christ which the gospel
unfolds transcends even the utterances of Paul.
The human personality of Jesus has almost quite
disappeared ; a divine being stands before us,
who has existed from the beginning, and who
has at its disposal the attributes of omnipotence
and omniscience like God Himself. In other
words, the discourses presuppose an elaborated
dogma of Christ's nature. Thirdly, and this is
a most striking instance, the First Epistle o •
John of our New Testament certainly originates
from the same author as the gospel. If we com-
pare the two, it is surprisingly plain that Jesus
in the gospel speaks like the author in his epistle.
The accordances are occasionally almost verbal.
But the prologue, too, of the gospel sounds almost
like a discourse. And still more. The discourse
of John the Baptist, which stands in the third
82

THE GOSPELS

chapter, is again quite similar to the discourses
of Jesus. The necessary conclusion is : here only
one person is speaking, the Evangelist.

If this view is right, then we can understand
that here no real historical work lies before us,
but a theological treatise. We might with some
correctness say — the teaching of Paul concerning
Christ has here, though in an advanced didactic
stage, been formed into the mould of a sketch of
Christ's life.

But still this does not explain what was the
motive which induced the author to write such
a book, and we find the key to this if, with the
idea that the question is one of teaching, we com-
bine a second point of view. I formulate it thus :
This writing has the purpose of defending the
Christian faith ; it is of the nature of an apology,
i.e. a defensive writing which has throughout
definite opponents in view, and so it opens the
series of numerous apologies which were written
in the first centuries for Christendom.

The enemies which the author combats are,
however, not the heathen, nor are they in my
opinion heretics within Christianity. We can
infer from this gospel that the Christianity of
the time when the author writes has no longer
any connection at all with Judaism. The work
of Paul has borne fruit, the Church has rejected
Judaism, which has become far more than in
Paul's time an actual enemy, and at the same

83

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

time its rival. Judaism, however, not merely
requites the enmity, it has hated the growing
Christianity from the beginning. Now it hurls
reproaches against Christians, and seeks to hurt
them especially by attacking their faith in
Christ. It maintained that Jesus was really
not the Messiah because He must have been
differently constituted ; that it was ridiculous and
blasphemous to call Him Son of God ; that He
possessed no divine power, but was a powerless
human being.

Our gospel must have been written in a locality,
presumably in Asia Minor, where this feud was
violently inflamed, and that has moved the author,
as said, beyond all else, to the composition of
this writing, and given it its tendency to refute
Jewish objections and invectives ; and to provide
his fellow-Christians with weapons ready to hand.
This view is on the whole a recent one, but it is
making victorious progress among scholars.
* To adduce an actual proof of this view is
of course impossible in this place. But some
few remarks may serve to show that it is feas-
ible. First of all, it strikes us as strange that
Jesus in this gospel is so sharply antagonistic to
the " Jews/' as they are called ; there is no
mention of definite persons, even the Pharisees
and scribes fall into the background. It is ever
this general expression : " the Jews/' That sounds
strange to be a historical account. The author
84

THE GOSPELS

so writes because by these " Jews " he has the
Judaism of his time in his mind's eye. But the
proper proof lies in the discourses themselves.
The Jews say once to Jesus (x. 33) : " We stone
thee for blasphemy and because that thou, being
a man, makest thyself God." In the real life of
Jesus we cannot understand a speech of that kind,
for it presupposes that Christ is in the super-
natural sense, in the doctrinal sense, the Son of
God. It is only in this way that the Jews could
find blasphemy in this name. They start from
the fact that there is only one God, and if a
human being makes himself into a divine being,
then it appears to them to be blasphemy. But
now what Jesus subsequently says aims at
demonstrating that Jesus, nevertheless, could bear
the name of God and the Son of God, as may be
shown from the Scriptures, which also designate
men as gods. We have in this, then, the defence
of the Evangelist. In many passages we note
that the Jews said that Christ could not save
Himself from death. To this the author answers
with the idea that Christ quite voluntarily
went to His death (xviii. 67). This tendency is
especially plain in the words that are put into the
mouth of Jesus (x. 18) : " No man taketh my life
from me, but I lay it down of myself, and I have
power to lay it down and I have power to take it
again." This is so also in the case of the words
addressed to Pilate : " Thou couldest have no

85

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

power at all against me, except it were given thee
from above " (xix. n). The "Jews" adduced
the treachery of Judas Iscariot — could such a
disciple be chosen by one who was omniscient ?
The author makes answer to this by showing how
Jesus repeatedly predicted this treachery (vi. 70 ;
xiii. 18 ; xxi. ff.), and also by the fact that Jesus
said : " I know well whom I have chosen " (xiii. 18).
From his point of view the miracles are of special
importance, as they are to him proofs of the om-
nipotence of the Christ, and he relates them as
such. It is equally characteristic that John the
Baptist is only honoured as a witness for Jesus.
Altogether the gospel speaks throughout of
witnesses and testimonies — quite conceivably ;
for in a case such as he is conducting against his
opponents witnesses are needed. In this way the
whole gospel is pervaded by references to this
antagonism, and it is only when we pay regard to
this in exposition that we can really understand
his utterances.

Who was the author of this unique writing ?
It cannot possibly be the Apostle John, the be-
loved disciple of Jesus. Besides, the gospel nowhere
asserts that this is the case. It certainly speaks
of a disciple whom Jesus loved, who appears to be
thought of as standing in some special relationship
tothe gospel, but it isstill problematic whet her John,
the son of Zebedee, is meant. These questions as to
what the gospel says about itself, and the disciple
86

THE GOSPELS

whom Jesus loved, make up a special and by no
means easy problem. I must pass this over, and
can do so, since for the question whether the
Apostle John wrote this gospel the result of such
inquiry, whatever it may be, is not determina-
tive. The decision that it cannot originate with
the apostle is placed beyond doubt by internal
evidence, the nature of the gospel itself. On this
the whole of the scientifically impartial theological
world is as good as united in opinion, and it has
not unfrequently happened that specialists who in
their younger years have believed that they could
in whole or in part maintain the Johannine
authorship have seen themselves compelled by
the force of facts to change their conviction.

I believe that we have discovered by the in-
vestigations so far made a whole series of proofs
on this question. Is it likely that the Apostle
John not merely used the Synoptics, but developed
their accounts in an unhistorical direction ? Is it
likely that the Synoptics, not apostles, have pre-
served the words of Jesus, which bear the stamp
of originality, and John has assigned to him
discourses, the central idea of which is the Church
dogma of Christ as the Son of God ? Is it likely
that the eye-witness would present the intensified
narratives of miracles, while those who were not
eye-witnesses relate the simpler ones ? Would
they depict the circumstances in Palestine more
plainly than the apostle ? Is it likely that the

87

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

more graphic narrative of the Synoptics is the later,
and the less graphic of John the older ? And on
the whole is it likely that this picture of Christ
which this gospel paints and which manifests
scarcely any human features; which is purely a
picture of marvel ; in which everywhere there
shine the rays of omnipotence and omniscience ;
which everywhere lays stress on His divine origin
is to be preferred historically to the human form
which in the Synoptics is frequently veiled, but
yet plainly shines out, with its prophetic weight
and grandeur, and its sympathy with the despised,
lost, and infirm ?

No, here only one opinion is possible — there is
quite an abundance of reasons for this — this work
is the work of a later time, and dated before the be-
ginning of the second century, at the very earliest
the closing years of the first, is not conceivable.
Certainly in this we place ourselves in contradiction
to the judgment of the Church which has prevailed
for so many centuries, and also with the opinion
held by the Church even as early as the close of
the second century. For it was then thought that
John came from Palestine to Asia Minor, and
laboured in a position of authority up to a great
old age, and wrote his gospel towards the end of
his life. How this tradition may be explained is
a question not now to be entered on. I may still
remark that investigation in general has often
impugned the idea that the Apostle John lived so
88

THE GOSPELS

long, and dwelt in Asia Minor. It is said, on the
contrary, that John died early, like his brother
James, the death of a martyr. The former
tradition arose through a confusion with the other
John, the so-called John the Presbyter, whose
existence in Asia Minor does not admit of a doubt.
For this assertion relevant reasons may be adduced.
In fact, even in our Mark there stands a passage
which appears to presuppose a martyr's death of
the Apostle John. For when Jesus says to him,
and to his brother : " You shall indeed drink the
cup which I drink of," this prophecy, as others of
the like kind, appears to have had its origin in
the death by martyrdom which had already
happened. Still this point remains undecided.
The problem thus presented is a peculiar and
complicated one which at all events has not yet
been brought into full clearness. Far less can the
recent hypothesis be regarded as proven which
purports to find the author of the gospel in John
the Presbyter.

The result is that this gospel can only claim to be
of very little value for the knowledge of the actual
life of Jesus, although there are portions of sound
tradition found in it. But this is not the same
as saying that it has no value at all. Its historical
value is indeed quite considerable. It is a source
of knowledge of the development of Church teach-
ing of the first importance, and of the relation
of Christianity to Judaism. And as a literary

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

product it is one of the most splendid creations of
early Christianity. A Christian enthusiastic for
his faith, and convinced of hitting off his Master's
intentions and depicting Him correctly, has here
clothed his lofty thoughts in the form of a
narrative of Jesus, which gives these ideas a far
greater impressiveness and liveliness than if he
had put them forth in the form of an instruction
or treatise, in the conviction that he is giving
the mind of his Master and presenting a true
portraiture of Him. Of course we must to-day
assign to the much simpler and less theological
writings of his predecessors, the Synoptics, a
higher, I think, a far higher value. For surely
Christendom has to thank them for the best that
it possesses, the picture, although frequently
obscured, of the human personality of Jesus, and
the knowledge of a great portion of His words full
of spirit and life, full of power, depth, and sim-
plicity.

90

Ill

THE REMAINING BOOKS OF THE
NEW TESTAMENT

r I ^HE two groups of New Testament writings
JL which I have so far treated, the thirteen
epistles which bear the name of Paul and the four
gospels, doubtless include the most important
books of the New Testament. Nevertheless, the
ten additional writings not yet discussed present
for our consideration just as rich and interesting
material. If we but to some extent want to ex-
haust it, it appears advisable to come to the point
without digression, and all the more, as I have still
to carry out a promise given at the beginning, and
that is to sketch in brief outlines how the separate
writings were gradually incorporated into a collec-
tion of canonical importance, into a New Testa-
ment canon.

The first book to which we have now to devote
attention is to be the one which stands closest
to the gospels, by its character as a narrative and
also from its author, I mean THE ACTS OF THE
APOSTLES, which undoubtedly is the work of the
same person who wrote our third gospel, that of
S. Luke.

91

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

In the last chapter I touched upon the fact
that there were more than four gospels in existence,
that this special literature of the gospel had rather
a wider diffusion. The same thing is true of the
Acts of the Apostles. The Greek title of the book
means accurately acts or deeds of the apostles.
Accordingly there were books entitled the Acts of
Paul, of Peter, of Andrew, of Thomas, also produced
under the name of " Travels " or " Miracles " of
this or that apostle. In the Church these were
frequently valued as edifying reading books,
particularly with the less educated classes, on
account of their miracles. In value as a source
of information, not one of them can be even
distantly set in comparison with our New Testa-
ment Acts of the Apostles. But was our Acts of
the Apostles the first example of this sort ? It is
hardly safe to speak positively ; it is not impossible
that it had predecessors. Of course the sources
which have been used do not quite give us the
right to make this assertion.

However that may be, we may in any case
assume that this class of literature of Acts of
Apostles did not arise until there were already
gospels in existence. It is to be regarded as a
kind of pendant to the gospel or as a shoot
from the gospel stock. Acts of Apostles were first
written when the apostles were already surrounded
with a halo of higher sanctity than was the case
during their lifetime ; when already a special
92

THE REMAINING BOOKS

religious interest was taken in the persons and
deeds of the apostles, who were looked upon as
the classical witnesses of Christ and the classical
representatives of Christianity, in other words,
when the term apostle had already got a dog-
matic colouring. To some extent the apostles
now appear as men set to complete or con-
tinue the teaching of Christ. Then, so to speak,
the history of the apostles is the completion and
continuation of the gospel history, and the books
which tell of the apostles are a kind of continuation
of the books which relate of Christ, and at the
same time presuppose them. The relationship of
our Acts of the Apostles to the Gospel of Luke
enables us precisely to understand the real nature
of the relationship. There are two books, and
yet at bottom only one, a twofold work, a building
with stories. At the beginning of the Acts of
the Apostles the author says : " The former
treatise have I made, O Theophilus." In the
" former treatise " he has spoken of Jesus, His life
and teaching, and represents in this way the second
book as a further part of his entire work.

The name " Acts of the Apostles " leads us to
expect something different from what we actually
find in the book. The majority of the apostles are
scarcely named, and, apart from a few notices as to
the rest, only two actually play a conspicuous part ;
in the first part Peter, in the second almost ex-
clusively Paul. Besides them some others are

93

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

alluded to who do not properly belong to the
apostolic circle : Stephen the first martyr, Philip the
Evangelist, who was active in Samaria, and Barna-
bas, for a while the companion of Paul. So it has
been supposed that the author was not intending to
write a history of the apostles, and his plan then has
been defined in various ways. For example, it has
been said that in fact his design was to record the
spread of the Gospel from Jerusalem to the chief
city of the world, Rome, for the book breaks off
with the imprisonment of Paul in Rome. In this
there is truth. It is certain that the author is
conscious of relating a joyful history, a history of
victory and triumph. But his special design
is not suitably expressed by that statement.
For how the Gospel came to Rome the author does
not really relate, but only how Paul came to be
there as prisoner. And in the first part of his
work he relates much that has nothing directly
to do with this spread of the Gospel, e.g. on the
state of the Church in Jerusalem. An earlier phase
of criticism sought to arrive at the solution by a
different path. The critics who recognised their
leader in the famous Tubingen professor Ferdinand
Christian Baur considered that the author pursued
in his whole work a definite aim, and this regulated
his plan. His design, namely, was to reconcile and
to conciliate the antagonism between the Jewish
Christians and those Gentile Christians converted
by the ministry of Paul, — an antagonism which

94

THE REMAINING BOOKS

these learned professors considered to be extremely
deep — and that he would accomplish this by
making his picture of the apostle of the Jews,
Peter, designedly similar to that of the apostle of
the Gentiles, Paul. Appeal in support of this was
made to the fact which in and for itself is correct,
that is to say, that in the representation of Paul
and Peter many resembling features are found.
Both awaken the dead, both perform miracles in
punishment, both have to combat a sorcerer, both
are marvellously freed out of prison, and much
more of the same sort. At present this idea is
recognised as untenable. The whole method of
the narrative of the Acts is much too simple and
naive to be a book with this kind of design. And
the marked similarities of the picture of Peter
and Paul are not to be explained by any design,
but are partly accidental, partly are to be traced
to the fact that the author no longer had a clear
knowledge of the difference of the two men, and
so painted his pictures in the like colours.

Accordingly the name " Acts of the Apostles " is
still quite the best designation of the character of
the book. If the author relates in detail only of
two apostles, this is to be explained, on the one
hand, by the fact that it was just these two who
were really of special importance, and on the other,
that his traditions and sources only gave full in-
formation about these two — of the rest he himself
had no further knowledge. And happily it did

95

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

not enter his mind to supply his lack of informa-
tion by his own fables, like the authors of later
Acts of Apostles. However, in one respect it is
still possible to speak of a certain design in his
method of treatment. The author seeks in his
narrative to defend in various ways Christianity
against the reproach of being a danger to the
State. For instance, he emphasises the point how
the Jews represent Paul and his associates as
rebels, as agitators dangerous to the State, and
how then the Roman officials testify to the inno-
cence of the apostle and his companions. Never-
theless, this is only a subordinate purpose oc-
casionally followed, and the character of the whole
book is not defined by this statement.

In the Gospel of Luke we plainly recognise
that the author has used different sources ; his
own statements point at that. It is natural to
think that he acted similarly in his Acts of the
Apostles, and investigation confirms this, at least
to a certain degree. Very clearly does one source
reveal itself in the second part of the work.
In chapter xvi. and then again in chapters xx.
and xxi., and finally in chapter xxvii. and in
the beginning of chapter xxviii., there suddenly
appears a change from the third person to the
first, elsewhere always used of Paul and his com-
panions, " we were going," " we " did that and
the other, and indeed without any explanation
of this change. Weighty reasons are adverse to
96

THE REMAINING BOOKS

the idea that the author of the book was him-
self the eye-witness who speaks in these "we"
sections. Then he must have here incorporated
in his work the information of some source, and
that so literally on the whole that he also adopted
by an easy-going literary method the " we" itself
found in the account. This " we " source can
only originate in an actual companion of Paul's
as witnessed by the remarkable vividness of
the account, the accuracy with which the stages
in the journeys and the localities are specified.
The sketch itself, although it is not exactly to be
regarded as a journal, which was filled up at the
time and place, must have been made when the
impression of the occurrences was still fresh to
the author. It must have contained more than
these few items, which do not form a really con-
nected account. And thus there spontaneously
arises the supposition which has been held by
many, that the author drew from this source for
other parts of chapter xvi. and onwards, but only
more changed and less copiously.

In recent days investigation has been zealously
seeking sources also for the first part. That the
author also possessed such here is very easily
credible, only the numerous attempts have in my
opinion scarcely had a definite result as yet. We are
not now in the position to separate the several con-
stituents of the sources. And in no case can these
sources or possibly oral traditions be put for value

H 97

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

alongside the " we " sections. Now this very
question as to the sources leads us at once to the
problem into which in the end almost all the other
questions run up — how ought we to judge as to
the historical value of the accounts which this
book transmits to us ?

The answer turns out to be very various in
reference to individual parts and portions of the
book. The discourses which the author ascribes
to Peter, Paul, Stephen, and others are to be
considered separately and by themselves as a
matter of course. There is a special reason for
that. They are of quite a different stamp from
the discourses of Jesus in the synoptic gospels.
These are evidently composed of transmitted
sayings or even still smaller fragments. The
discourses of the Acts of the Apostles are, on the
contrary, connected remarks on definite ideas on
the death, the resurrection of Jesus, and other sub-
jects. The direct impression we gain at once tells
us that these elaborate discourses cannot have been
transmitted by memory. Nor have they even
with traditions as their basis been further elabo-
rated, at least not in the main. The question is
rather one of the author's own material. This
may be recognised by the different stylistic
peculiarities which recur, and also by other
tokens, as that quite the same manner of proof is
put into the mouth of Paul as in other passages
into that of Peter ; or that Stephen again brings
98

THE REMAINING BOOKS

forward Old Testament history in a wholly
analogous way to that of a speech of Paul's.
Now additions of that kind to speeches freely put
together are quite intelligible from the literary
usages of the period. That is to say, it is quite
in accordance with the style of ancient historians
occasionally to put speeches into the mouths of
their heroes with which they are rather furnishing
oratorical adornment for their recital than giving
historical documents. The historian Livy and
the Greek historian Thucydides are known to
have done this. We cannot be surprised that our
author, too, made use of the same plan. For his
gospel has already shown him to be a man who was
more familiar with the literary usages of his time
than most of the other New Testament writers.
These discourses of the Acts of the Apostles have
accordingly their value, not because they instruct
us in the ideas of Peter or Paul, but because they
mirror the personal views of the author.

As far as concerns the proper historical accounts,
the question of credibility stands essentially on a
different footing as to the first twelve chapters to
which the fifteenth belongs than the second part
of the book.

A little reflection teaches that the notices on
the beginnings of the Church in Jerusalem and on
its first spread from Jerusalem are, to say the
least, very incomplete. But what the author
tells us shows in part the signs of being legendary.

99

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

It is also plain to be recognised that the author
only possessed a very faint idea of the actual cir-
cumstances of the apostolic period. According to
his account, e.g., Peter had, from the very begin-
ning, recognised the designation of Christianity for
the heathen, and their freedom from the law, with
the same clearness as Paul. That is, however, not
possible, for the Epistle to the Galatians teaches us
unmistakably that Peter at first was far removed
from the free attitude of Paul. At the same time
this first part of the Acts of the Apostles still
preserves a series of good and valuable accounts
of which without this book we should know
nothing — even if it is often only single notices,
as, e.g., that Barnabas gave up his whole posses-
sions for the good of the poor ; that in Jerusalem
seven — whose names are given — were appointed
as guardians of the poor ; that a Gentile Christian
Church was first formed in Antioch — the like
traditions endure the sharpest test, and if the
history of Stephen is probably strongly depicted
after the pattern of the passion history of Jesus,
there is yet at the base a historical core. Stephen
really was the first martyr for his faith, and his
murder gave rise to a dispersion of the believers
in Jesus who carried the Gospel into wider regions.
From the historical point of view, the second
part of the work is, on the whole, to be estimated
far higher, which tells us of the journeys and
fortunes of Paul. Of course also here are found

100

THE REMAINING BOOKS ;>1'J-';

parts which are marked out from the remainder
in which the facts are no longer very vividly pre-
sented to view, or which betray a certain
mechanical method of presentation. But in
the main it is impossible to overestimate the
value of this part. It is only this connected
narrative that really enables us to arrange the
scattered notices in the Pauline epistles in the
places to which they belong, and to approximately
put them in chronological order. The " we "
sections do, without question, form the climax of
the whole. For instance, the description of the
voyage of Paul and of the shipwreck before his
arrival in Rome is a real masterpiece of exact
description, connecting fact with fact, and giving
evidence in every detail of personal observation.
He who in a quiet hour meditates deeply on these
chapters xxvii. and xxviii. will recognise that
without difficulty. Besides, here Paul, the great
apostle, comes very close to the reader in a way
that is striking and sympathetic. We gain the
distinct impression that he is the only one who
in the great danger which threatens the vessel
and its crew does not lose his head, who by the
superior style of his bearing, by his repose and
reasonableness, makes a striking impression even
on the heathen crew.

The author does not give his name in this book
any more than in the third gospel. Tradition
calls him Luke, the fellow-traveller and disciple

101

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

of Paul. There is yet no united opinion prevailing
among critics as to whether this tradition is
correct. Not a few judge that a confidential
companion of Paul could not very well have
written much that is in this book, since it is too
remote from the actual occurrences. It is very
conceivable that Luke wrote the " we " sections,
and that this explains the tradition which assigns
to him the authorship of the book. The Acts of
the Apostles was at any rate written somewhat
later than the Gospel of Luke. Accordingly from
this, as well as from other indications, it was
scarcely composed before the year 100, and also
not much later.

Next to the Acts of the Apostles we rank the
eight epistles which the New Testament contains
besides the genuine and the unauthentic epistles
of Paul. Among these latter the greatest and
in many respects the most important is the
EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS, and it must at all
events be taken quite apart by itself. The principal
content of this treatise is theoretical and didactic
in style. The author's purpose is to exhibit the
glory of the revelation in Christ, the greatness and
dignity of the new Covenant. This he does by
bringing in for the purpose of comparison a store
of Old Testament ideas and institutions. Moses,
the Old Testament priesthood, especially the high
priesthood, the sacrifices of the Old Testament,
and other matters are discussed, and everywhere

102

THE REMAINING BOOKS

is it shown how these are only shadows and types
of all that was realised in Christ. He is the true
sacrifice. He is the true High Priest, the eternal
High Priest who is the author of eternal redemp-
tion. It is not to be wondered at that to the
modern reader these comparisons appear ex-
ceedingly strange, and frequently also difficult to
understand. For all these sacrificial usages, these
statements concerning the high priesthood which
were then used for the explanation and illustra-
tion of the Christian religion, themselves need
explanation and illustration now, because for the
modern reader they are drawn from too remote
a source. However, these almost learned dis-
quisitions which the author gives on the relation
of the old to the new Covenant are not the only
things that the epistle contains. It is also not
wanting in powerful practical piety, as, e.g., we
may see in reading what the author says on
Christian firmness and patience or on tribulation
as a divine discipline and education.

The superscription which was later added or
rather prefaced " to the Hebrews " is calculated
to lead the reader astray. The treatise is in no
way destined for Palestinians, nor was it written
merely for Jewish Christians. Appearance cer-
tainly seems in favour of this, because there is so
much said of Jewish worship. But in recent days
it is beginning to be recognised that, as a matter
of fact, nothing whatever points to born Jewish

103

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

readers. For the author in no way speaks of the
Jewish arrangements and usages of his time, and
is entirely silent about the Temple ; he has rather
solely before his mind the statements of the Old
Testament scriptures, and among the Gentiles
there was an existent interest in these. But if he
warns against apostasy, it does not follow that he
is supposing that his readers were inclined to return
to Judaism; he has rather simply before his eye
that which the times of persecution in which the
author lived usually brings, namely, the danger of
giving up and denying the Christian faith.

The person of the author is unknown to us. In
the East at an early period Paul was regarded as
the author, but for many reasons he cannot have
written this epistle. A Western tradition, which
is demonstrated as existing about the year 200,
names Barnabas the author. This is, of course,
only a conjecture, and, as it seems to me, not a
probable one. Luther conjectured Apollos, men-
tioned in the ist Corinthians and the Acts of the
Apostles. Others named Luke or Silas. All pure
hypotheses. Very lately Harnack would make
plausible that Priscilla, frequently mentioned in
the New Testament, was the authoress. But this
idea has met with no approval, it has even been
refuted ; in fact the treatise bears not the stamp of
a lady's letter. We must here be satisfied to be
ignorant. But so much may be absolutely asserted
of the author that he must have been a highly

104

THE REMAINING BOOKS

educated Christian. Not merely on account of
his extraordinary acquaintance with the Old
Testament and the masterly way in which he
uses it, but also by reason of his style and his
whole performance. The Epistle to the Hebrews
exhibits the best and most elegant Greek
of all the books of the New Testament. There
are also found plain indications that the author
had a literary and oratorical training. We may
well suppose that he laboured as a distinguished
teacher in a church, and edified believers with his
discourses. But there is something more that we
can assert of him with certitude, and it is just that
which has a peculiar interest for theological science.
There existed, so to speak, in that day a twofold
sort of Judaism. The one is a Judaism such as is
represented by the Pharisees and scribes of the
gospels, and a Judaism bound firmly to the law
of ceremonies and the numerous additions thereto,
made by the Rabbins, thoroughly pervaded by the
idea of the election of Israel, and so far national,
which had its head- quarters in Palestine. Besides
and outside this in the Diaspora there had arisen
another Judaism, and one in which its peculiarities
were softened and strongly modified ; which,
properly speaking, had only a belief in one God,
in morality, and the recognition of the Old Testa-
ment, in common with genuine Judaism, but
otherwise widely open to the influences which
emanated from Greek culture, such as then pre-
105

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

vailed in the world, and which therefore was
usually distinguished as Hellenistic Judaism.
Alexandria was the most important seat of the
propagation and cultivation of this Hellenistic
Judaism, then a centre of culture of the very first
rank. And here dwelt approximately at the time
of Jesus the Jewish political writer and philo-
sopher Philo, and in him the philosophical ideas
of the Greeks were blended with the elements of
Judaism in a particularly unique and characteristic
way.

We can now plainly see that the author of our
Epistle to the Hebrews had breathed the air of
this Alexandrine philosophy or theology, and
had also probably read the works of Philo. The
speciality of his treatise consists partly in his
uniting the ideas thus derived with his Christian
faith. Certainly his ideas are not of themselves
properly philosophic, his faith is, as a matter of
fact, essentially the faith of contemporary Chris-
tians. But the colour of his thoughts shows
Alexandrine influence. For example, he makes
quite similar assertions to those of Philo of the
divine logos of the " cosmic reason " which, so to
speak, forms the bridge between God and the
world. The view that the author wrote his
epistle for the Christians of Jerusalem has of late,
as already intimated, been quite given up ; the
majority think that it was designed for Christians
in Rome. I do not share this opinion, but rather
106

THE REMAINING BOOKS

am disposed to think that this treatise is not a letter
at all, but in fact a learned and edifying treatise.
It is only the last chapter that is epistolary in
form — there is no address at all — but even here,
in my judgment, the epistolary ending is merely
formal, merely the wording in the same way as
we have noted in the un authentic epistles of Paul.
At the end there is a remark on the freeing of
Timothy and also of that of the author himself.
These statements and also a few other points lie
very close to the thought of the imprisonment
of Paul. I am disposed on that account to con-
jecture that the author desired to close his epistle
in the style of Paul. The date is to be put at the
earliest in the years A.D. 85-95. It cannot fall
later, since an epistle which dates in the years
96-8, of the Roman Church to the Corinthian,
which we still possess under the name of the First
Epistle of Clement, made use of the Epistle to the
Hebrews.

The seven minor epistles, which, in addition to
those already spoken of, are still to be examined,
form a group within the New Testament, and are
usually classed together under a common name.
To employ, first of all, the usual names, we are
concerned here with the two epistles of Peter, the
Epistle of James, that of Jude, and the three
epistles of John. The common designation of
these is the CATHOLIC. EPISTLES. We must not
here think of " Catholic " teaching or the
107

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

" Catholic " Church. The name rather affirms —
catholic, of course, means universal — that those
letters were not addressed to an individual church,
but to the whole Church, or the professed title
"Catholic" is intended to describe a circular
letter.

In fact a glance at the opening salutations of
these letters shows us that by this title " Catholic"
a real peculiarity at least of most of these letters
is specified. The Epistle of James, for instance,
is directed to the twelve tribes which are scattered
abroad, that means to the whole of Christendom
spread through the world. Similarly general are
the salutations in the Second Epistle of Peter and
the Epistle of Jude ; the First Epistle of Peter
enumerates in the greeting at least a multitude of
great provinces in which his readers were to be
found. Only in the case of the three epistles of
John are the circumstances special. The First
Epistle of John has no address at all, but might
on that account easily appear to be a circular
letter ; the second of John is directed to an
" elect lady " and her children ; the third to a
certain Gaius. For the present we will exclude
these three Johannine letters from consideration.
In the other four we, in any case, easily recognise
that the inclusiveness of the greeting is not merely
an external mark of the letters, but at once gives
us a key to the contents. Letters which are ad-
dressed to the whole of Christendom, or to pro-
108

THE REMAINING BOOKS

vinces greater than the German empire, could
never be delivered, in other words, they are not
real letters intended for a definite public, but
writings which only assume the form of letters,
and therefore, so to speak, literary epistles,
addresses, sermonic expositions, or, like i Peter,
pamphlets in the style of letters. To this idea
corresponds the content of the epistles. The
genuine letters of Paul show everywhere a great
abundance of allusions to concrete circumstances,
definite persons, special occurrences. These are
not present here. Only matters are touched on
throughout which are of interest to the whole of
Christendom, whether the uprise of false teachers,
or the appearance of dangers such as the perse-
cution of Christians brought with it. We have
already made acquaintance with such treatises,
e.g. in the Epistle to the Hebrews itself and also
in that to the Ephesians, in the epistles to Timothy
and Titus.

This peculiarity of the documents, this certainty
that they are not properly letters, leads at once
to the further presumption that all that belongs
to the epistolary form is in fact mere form, in
other words, that they do not really originate with
the apostolic men whose names they bear. They
are pseudonymous productions ; in this, in fact,
all unprejudiced experts are to-day agreed. Only
we must here again recollect that such pseudony-
mous authorship, according to the notions of the
109

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

period, is not simply to be put under the cate-
gory of forgery. We have, in fact, already seen
that this represents for that period a widespread
usage, which is only to be judged according to its
special ideas ; the authors themselves, however,
were not of the opinion that they were guilty of
forgery when they published their treatises under
the name of Peter or John, and in this way assured
for them a heightened respect. If we are not
wholly deceived, the fact itself that actual epistles
of Paul were then extant, and spread quickly in
Christendom, was the exciting cause why also
later Christians began to address the Church in
the same form as the great apostle had done.

Closer examination of the various epistles
abundantly confirms the idea that the names of
the authors which stand at the commencement
do not inform us of the actual authors. This
opinion very early and most commonly prevailed
with reference to the SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
This epistle was written in order to oppose those
people who maintained that the prophesied and
expected return of Christ had not happened, that
everything had remained as it had been in the
times of the fathers ; and that it was therefore
folly to count further on the second advent of
the Lord. This certainly plants us in a later
period, for in the early days the hope in the
coming of Christ was vivid. To this must be
added that a chapter of this epistle is almost

THE REMAINING BOOKS

entirely a copy and repetition of the short Epistle
of Jude. THE EPISTLE OF JUDE is a sharp attack
on certain false teachers, in fact, the Gnostics
with whom we have already met in the Pastoral
Epistles of Timothy and Titus — a tendency of
thought which threatened to dissolve Christendom,
and was mingled with all kinds of strange specu-
lations which in addition also endangered Christian
morality, maintaining, as it did, that to those
who have true " knowledge " — this is the meaning
of the name Gnostic — all is permissible, whatever
he may do or allow. This Gnosticism was the
most dangerous enemy of the Church probably
since the beginning of the second century, and all
the more dangerous as it did not stand quite
outside the Church, but raised the claim to the
name of Christian, since it frequently had its
roots firmly fixed in the soil of the Church. The
conflict with it was for long decades the chief
trouble of the Church. The short Epistle of
Jude had its origin in this conflict, and the
probability is that it was not written before the
years A.D. no to 140. If the Second Epistle of
Peter copied it, then it must have originated
somewhat later. In favour of this another sup-
porting fact lies before us : this epistle knows
of a great collection of epistles of Paul, and from
the manner in which the author speaks of these
epistles we recognise that he already sees in them
a kind of sacred scripture. Accordingly its
in

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

composition before the year 150 is rather im-
probable, and very possibly the epistle falls some-
what later. We have here, therefore, most likely
the latest portion of the New Testament before us,
perhaps about 100 years after the earliest, the
First Epistle to the Thessalonians, was extant.
It is worthy of note that this epistle most clearly
and diligently seeks to awaken the impression
that Peter was actually the author. For example,
the writer asserts that he was an eye-witness of
the transfiguration of Christ.

The FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER is certainly older,
and, we may add, a writing of far higher religious
value. The most important fact for our know-
ledge of this epistle is that the author was
living in a period when Christians were
severely threatened from outside. A cloud has
gathered over their heads, they are persecuted
on account of the name of Christian, and they
have no mere private scorn, calumny, hostility
to fear from the heathen ; but, as we can plainly
recognise from the epistle, the heathen govern-
ment has interfered, hales Christians before its
tribunals, and threatens them with penal conse-
quences. It is this situation that gives to his
whole writing its colouring, and pervades nearly
every sentence. The author, in view of sufferings,
points to the glorious hope of the Christian, which
promises for this present light affliction a great
recompense ; but he is not content with that :

THE REMAINING BOOKS

above all he feels deeply concerned to remind his
brethren that it is incumbent on them to disarm
their foes by a blameless walk, and so convince
them of their wrong-doing. Besides, they are to
show to the authorities all lawful obedience, so as
not to irritate them. The author thus appears as
a man who, however firmly he holds to his faith,
judges his period with true common sense, and
knows how to advise the Christians of his day
really for their best interests ; as a man in whom
the power of faith and hope and moral conviction
stand in fine balance. Now a persecution of
Christians so general and widespread did not occur
in the lifetime of Peter. On this account certainly,
but of course also for other reasons besides, Peter
cannot be the author. A period of persecution
such as the epistle presupposes cannot be shown
to have occurred until the last days of the reign
of the Emperor Domitian, who reigned from A.D.
81-96, and then subsequently for the reign of the
more famous Trajan from A.D. 98-117. The First
Epistle of Peter was probably written in one of
these two reigns.

The EPISTLE OF JAMES exhibits an essentially
different character. The author's personality
recedes into the background. The only thing
which reminds us that the pamphlet purports to
be an epistle is the greeting and the frequently
recurring address, " Brethren/1 There is even
no epistolary conclusion. As to content, we are
i 113

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

dealing with a homiletical exposition, carried on
in epigrammatic form ; the central idea is that
Christianity must be proved by action and good
works, and that a faith in which this proof is
wanting is only a vain and hollow pretence.
Luther judged this epistle unfavourably, and
frankly designated it an " epistle of straw." This
judgment is anyhow unfair ; Luther measured the
epistle one-sidedly by Paul's doctrine of justifi-
cation by faith ; and as it does not represent
this teaching, as some of its utterances are
even not to be agreed therewith, he was out
of sympathy with it. We cannot, however, fail
to recognise that the author proclaims in a
thoroughly worthy and frequently even nervous
and pithy way a Christianity that is practical.
On the other hand, Luther was quite right when
he supposed that this epistle was not written by
an apostle, but by some good pious Christian man.
One of those we know by the name of James cannot
in fact be the author, neither one of the two
apostles of that name, nor the more famous brother
of the Lord, who, with the highest probability, is
meant in the greeting. The reasons of this are
not few. For a dweller in Jerusalem the author
certainly writes much too excellent Greek. But
it is possible to show that he had already used the
First Epistle of Peter. Further, he is not really
opposing Paul himself, but probably people who
excused the defects of their morality by his
114

THE REMAINING BOOKS

teaching on justification ; and of the law of free-
dom he speaks in a way which is related with
that of writers of the second century. Thus he
may belong to the second century. He probably
falls in the period between A.D. no and 140.

In the beginning of the second century, but
probably somewhat earlier than the Epistle of
James, fall, finally, THE THREE EPISTLES OF JOHN.
On these only a few remarks. The first and longest
epistle is, without doubt, by the author of the
Gospel of John, and the two shorter ones also
apparently. This is at once saying that the
Apostle John was not the author. The first
epistle contains many beautiful thoughts, as
that " God is love " and that he only partici-
pates in the love of God who loves his brother
and keeps the commandments of God. At the
same time he does in no wise merely preach
these truths generally, but it is in a certain
sense just as much a polemical treatise as, ac-
cording to our former statement, the Gospel
of John is. Only the gospel is directed against
opposing Judaism. The epistle has, on the
other hand, to do with false teachers within
Christianity, and, in fact, likewise with Gnostics ;
in particular with such who were maintaining
that the Christ, who descended from on high,
had not really appeared in the flesh, and was only
seemingly identical with the historical person
Jesus Christ. The epistle does not bear the name

"5

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

of the author. On the other hand, in both the
smaller epistles of John, strikingly similar in
style, there stands as designation of the other :
" the elder or the Presbyter." Many find in this
the Presbyter John spoken of above who lived in
Asia Minor, and ascribe to him both the gospel
and also these epistles as well ; others again think
that also here the epistolary form is only formal.

Besides these three epistles and the Gospel of
John there is in the New Testament another fifth
Johannine writing, bearing at its top the name of
John, without designating it, of course, as a work
of the apostle, which it is also not likely that it can
be. But, according to its whole manner, style as well
as content, it is extraordinarily different from the
other writings of John, so that to the majority it
passes for a matter of fact that it does not originate
with the same author : I mean the REVELATION
OF JOHN, the last book of our New Testament
Canon, the last also which we have to dwell upon.

It is a work of the very greatest peculiarity,
as every reader immediately feels ; not a single
one of the other books of the New Testament has
any close affinity with it. Only single portions
of the gospels, which refer to the last things, and
some passages of the epistles of Paul breathe the
same spirit. But even they are in their main
content to be distinguished from the Revelation.
The chief impression for a modern reader is that
116

THE REMAINING BOOKS

of a strange and wild fancifulness. Here appears
imagery which strikes us as so unintelligible and
curious as nothing else in the New Testament ; —
of a dragon which with its tail " draweth a third
part of the stars of heaven/' and which persecutes
a heavenly woman, who has borne a son ; of horses
with women's hair, of locusts which rise out of an
abyss ; of an angel who swallows a book ; of the
son of man who has seven stars in his right hand ;
of a beast which rises up out of the sea, with ten
crested horns on his head and seven heads, of
which one is mortally wounded. Luther said :
" My soul cannot reconcile itself to this book," and
to most readers of to-day that is spoken from the
heart. Only isolated glorious sayings will they
except, such as, " Blessed are the dead which die
in the Lord : Yea, saith the Spirit, for they rest from
their labours ; and their works do follow them "
(xiv. 13), and in addition, perhaps, a greater sec-
tion, the seven epistles to the churches of Ephesus,
Sardis, Laodicea, etc., which the prophet asserts to
have received from the risen Christ by dictation, and
in which in praise or blame a judgment on these
churches and their work is pronounced (chaps, ii.
and iii.). Nay, we may say without exaggeration
that, except in the early days, this book has always
been one for which its readers felt little sympathy,
and theologians least of all. Only for the sects
it has ever been a favourite book, especially for
those who looked for signs of the end of the world ;
117

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

and altogether for those Christians whose piety
assumed fanatical forms, or to whom the mysteri-
ousness of this picture- world afforded the welcome
nourishment for their fancy. Historical inquiry has,
of course, for long devoted a lively interest to it ;
it needs must feel compelled and incited to try to
penetrate its meaning, in all its many dark places
and enigmas, and in the last centuries it has ex-
pended in this way much trouble and ingenuity,
and has indeed reached something real. Certainly
to-day we are still far away from understanding all
details, and also the book as a whole still conceals
many enigmas. But if there is any point on which
honest inquiry brings forth fruits, it is to be found
here. To-day we are in the position in some
measure to bring this remarkable book nearer
to the intelligence of lay folk, and, as I believe,
to make it even more valuable. I can, of course,
here only attempt to develop some foundation
principles which are of quite special importance
for understanding it.

Of fundamental importance is first of all the
view that this book, little as it has its like within
the New Testament, in truth is not after all
absolutely unique. It, too, belongs to a distinct
species of literature, and one particularly wide-
spread, and a class which has its offshoots in
many centuries. This had its rise in the sphere
of Judaism as the offspring, so to speak, of genuine
Israelitish prophecy ; a child which of course
118

THE REMAINING BOOKS

does not exhibit the grand growth of the parent,
and, in many respects, leaves behind the impres-
sion of artificiality and degeneration, but which
yet has preserved somewhat of the old prophetic
spirit. The first book of this family, the first
apocalypse (that is to say " revelation "), that we
possess is the Book of Daniel, which in the Old
Testament is reckoned among the prophets (a
class to which it does not properly belong), and
which did not originate until the years 167 to
165 B.C., but which in any case was of great
influence for the whole of the succeeding apoca-
lyptic literature, and on which, for example, our
New Testament apocalyptic author has been
nourished. After this there are works like
the Book of Enoch, the Ascension of Moses, the
so-called Fourth Book of Ezra, the Apocalypse
of Baruch, and others. This kind of literature is,
then, as it were, directly continued in Christianity.
Our apocalypse is again not the only single
example of this kind ; at a very early period the
apocalypse of Peter was famous, of which a few
years ago a greater fragment was again dis-
covered, and lastly the products of this literature
stretch far into the middle ages. What is the pur-
pose of these books ? what do they contain ? The
name Apocalypse or Revelation gives us a direct
hint. They are intended to impart knowledge
of hidden things, of heavenly mysteries. To
this appertain many various things, e.g. even
119

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

questions that concern the creation of the world ;
but quite in the foreground stand the secrets of
the future. And here it is immediately clear
that they are really religious needs which find
expression in these books. Many " Revelations "
certainly give us the impression that their only
design was the contentment of that religious curi-
osity, which would like to lift the veil from all
kinds of things of which man can know nothing.
But the real kernel is of a really nobler kind.
These books were for the most part written with
a feeling of severe pressure, and of a comfortless
present. The oppression of the people of Israel
by heathen potentates, the attack on all that
was sacred to it, lies like a burden on the soul,
and so their yearning hastened on to a better
future, a future of which the ancient prophets
prophesied ; this they depict, this they seek to
interpret ; its nearness they endeavour to de-
termine. For they believe that a transformation
of things and a mighty interference of God were
at hand. The loadstar is the belief in the faith-
fulness of God, and in the truth of His ancient
promises, and thus the soul of the author, as
that of the reader, experiences a religious exalta-
tion in these prospects. Along with this content
there exist quite distinct formal peculiarities.
Above all things the preference for a mysterious,
half- veiled, half -revealing kind of speech, for a
peculiar kind of picture-language, which shall

THE REMAINING BOOKS

both stimulate and satisfy the interest of the
reader. That the communications are made in
the form of a vision belongs in particular to the
clothing of the ideas. The author poses as a seer,
he views hidden things under the form of symbol-
ism, or tells how an angel showed him or revealed
or explained this or that. Certain numbers of
obscure character from ancient prophets are
interpreted, new numbers are added, and thus
the answer is attempted to the question, " Lord,
how long ? " From all this we see that it is a
kind of artificial form which this style of writing
exhibits. Not every one can write thus, there
belongs to it some sort of study, a certain learning,
an acquaintance with the world of prophecy,
with the formation and interpretation of visions.
Such a book is our Apocalypse of John. He
who knows the Jewish apocalypses sees at the
first glance its consanguinity with them. Nay,
a good bit of Judaism is found in it, and it
is in this sense the most Jewish writing of the
New Testament, just as the half-barbaric Greek
points out the author as a Christian Jew. Mean-
while it is now above all necessary to put the
question : What, then, is the special purpose
of this Apocalypse ? or is there nothing at all
special, except, perhaps, that it merely adds
some Christian colouring to the picture of the
future set in Jewish form ? No, there is no
doubt that, with all its dependency on proto-

121

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

types, and with all its relationship to them, it is
a work which, on its part, has its own point of
view. That we recognise if we describe the
situation out of which it arose.

The Apocalypse depicts in good part the things
which shall precede the end, the advent of the
millennial kingdom, one may say the drama of
the last distress and tribulation. This distress
is portrayed as dreadful, but in the background
there rises the figure of the Conqueror Jesus,
who will triumph over all His enemies ; the
picture of the New Jerusalem, the city with the
golden streets in which the Messiah will then
reign. We see the glance of the seer grasps with
true ardour this coming time. " And, behold,
I come quickly/' it is said of Jesus (xxii. 12),
and the author gives at the conclusion of the
book, as an echo of this saying, the yearning,
heartfelt prayer : " Even so, come quickly, Lord
Jesus." This burning hope of a sudden change
of things is explained by the fact that the author
writes when Christianity has to endure per-
secution to the death, when martyrdom threatens
it. The author so regards the situation, — the
whole of Christianity has to face martyrdom.
That is a proof that it was not written before
the Emperor Domitian, but apparently under
him ; the book was most likely produced in
the nineties of the first century. In this situa-
tion the seer writes to comfort his brothers, he

THE REMAINING BOOKS

desires before all things to strengthen them, so
that they may remain firm in their faith. He
preaches patience and faithfulness to them in
his whole book. He enkindles their ardour
through the glorious things that he says of the
martyrs. He depicts them as conquerors. They
are they who have " come out of great tribulation,"
arrayed in white shining garments ; they carry
palms in their hands (vii. 9). He speaks of the
promises which beckon to him who endures to
the end.

So regarded does not the book become im-
mediately more humanly intelligible ? Do we
not feel how the mighty power of faith speaks
out of it ? Do we not understand why the
author looks so wistfully for the end ? Now he
sees the time of the final trouble has broken out.
Are not many of the sayings of the book thus
filled with a much more vigorous import ? " Be
thou faithful unto death, then I will give to thee
the crown of life " (ii. 10). That is a word which
more deeply impresses us when we know that
death is no mere phrase, but is actually threatened.

But besides, we comprehend in this way another
side of the book, the glow of hate which speaks
out of it, hatred of the Roman empire. This
hate, too, is an heirloom of Judaism, but it is
afresh enkindled by the situation of Christianity.
For Rome, and at its head the emperor, shows
itself as the foe of Christianity, and persecutes it

123

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

to the death. And it punishes not merely the
confession of Christ, but it seeks to seduce Chris-
tians to something which in the eye of the seer
is the greatest of horrors, that is, to the worship
of the emperor's image. That was at that time
really the requirement. Oriental rulers had long
made themselves objects of religious veneration.
That cult had propagated itself in the Roman
empire ; the so-called Emperor- worship was a part
of the Roman State religion, and was specially cul-
tivated in Asia Minor, where our book originated.
So that the author now sees in the Roman kingdom
and in its emperor the foe of God, the truly anti-
Christian power, the " beast which rises out of
the sea " and " blasphemes the name of the Most
High," but is itself supplicated by men, and so,
according to his opinion, the time of antichrist
has come which must precede the reign of Christ,
and he does not shun saying as much (intelligible
enough, even in his metaphors) to his readers.
The Apocalypse is a consolatory and warning
treatise for Christians, and, at the same time,
a most violent polemic against the Roman State.
If thus the whole of the book breathes actual
life, yet on the other hand the author did not
simply write it down from the bottom of his heart,
in an off-hand way ; it is rather, for all that, a
product of apocalyptic learning and art. And here
again the question emerges how, then, this whole
peculiar symbolism of the book is to be taken.
124

THE REMAINING BOOKS

Most persons will think that the author simply
gave free course to his fancy, and invented all him-
self, and even theologians have for the most part
accepted this. However, that is not a practical
solution. Even human imagination is bound by
laws, and here they appear to be wanting. Besides,
the author without doubt believes in his own
prophecies. How is that explicable if he gave
himself up to the arbitrary play of his own fancy ?
It has been supposed that we can get to the bottom
of the matter as soon as we interpret everything by
definite occurrences. This is certainly possible in
some passages, and those in particular where the
Roman empire and the emperor, the beast with
the horns and heads, is concerned. But in most
cases these attempts miscarry. It is not until
recent days that we have here arrived at definite
knowledge. Especially Professor Gunkel has the
great merit of having paved the way. He has
recognised that in all this symbolism old and
often quite ancient traditions are incorporated.
The individual apocalyptic writer does not as
a rule invent his matter, but he passes on these
traditions, alters them, makes additions of his
own, but in the main he draws out of sources of
older knowledge, and opinion of future things in
which he on his part reverences divine wisdom
and prophecy. This makes clear why it is that
this symbolism is for the most part so unin-
telligible. It originally meant something definite,
125

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

and then lost this significance, and notwithstanding
this is again carried forward with another meaning.
Let us speak more definitely. The symbolism of
apocalyptic writers was already extant in Judaism;
but the Apocalypse contains much which cannot
originally have been produced on the soil of
Judaism, because it, properly speaking, contra-
dicts its religious ideas. It thus appears that
certain things have their final origin, quite apart
from Judaism, in heathen religions; and in par-
ticular in the Babylonian religion, as well also
as the Persian. Certain mixed forms which
arose from them are also of importance. I give
an example or two. The author says at the out-
set (i. 4) : " Grace and peace be with you from
him who is and from him who was and from him
who is to come, and from the seven spirits which
are before the throne, and from Jesus Christ."
What does he mean by the " seven spirits " ?
That is primarily not intelligible according to
Christian ideas. But further we read of seven
angels, seven lamps, seven lampstands, seven stars
which are the eyes of God. That, to begin with,
is obscure. But it is easily recognisable that this
Christian number seven is related to the number
seven which Judaism recognises in speaking of
the seven archangels. These seven archangels are
most likely to be the seven spirits. But how did
Judaism come by its seven archangels ? These were
taken over by it, and in fact they were originally
126

THE REMAINING BOOKS

the seven planets which among the Babylonians
were looked upon as gods. In Judaism the reality
of their existence was not called in question, but
gods could not for them exist alongside the one
God, so they were reduced to the position of
archangels before God's throne. The author of
the Apocalypse took this over, but at the same
time it is clear that the Babylonian idea influenced
him in other ways besides. That these seven
spirits are found alongside seven torches, lamps,
seven eyes of God, which, as it were, look down
from heaven, is at once explicable from the fact
that they were originally the planets. Not that
the author still knew this origin of his meta-
phors, or that he himself had the intention of
speaking of them as such. But we now under-
stand how it happens that he uses this peculiar
imagery. He owes it to a tradition propagated
through many generations.

In chapter xii. a woman is spoken of who is in
the sky clothed with the sun, and under her feet
the moon, and a diadem of twelve stars on her
head. This woman gives birth to a child, which
then is persecuted by a dragon. By the child
the author understands the Messiah. The woman,
therefore, was his mother. But how did any
one even with the boldest imagination come to
depict Mary as a woman in the sky, and put
her alongside the sun and moon and stars ? This
metaphor points to the fact that we have here
127

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

to do with a mythological idea. The woman is a
celestial goddess, and the dragon is likewise a
mythological creature. At the bottom of this
there originally lies an ancient Oriental story of the
gods, and we can trace such stories. These have
come to the author by tradition, and in fact
through the channel of Judaism, and he has then
given to this material an interpretation which was
originally quite alien from it, and which helps him
to express his own religious ideas. It may also
be shown that the representation of the heavenly
Jerusalem had originally a mythological idea at
its base. Heaven itself is conceived of as a city
of the gods. Consequently, for instance, the idea
that the city is equal in height, in length, and
breadth ; and therefore also the idea of golden
resplendent streets which run through it, or also
of a stream which flows through the midst of it,
which, in fact, is the " Milky Way." This method
of explanation helps us really to understand, it
shows us how to comprehend much of the sym-
bolism of the Apocalypse, while it teaches us to
recognise its source.

Lastly, one more point may be mentioned.
A theological student some years ago made the
discovery that portions of the Apocalypse must
have originally been written by a Jewish author,
and only sparingly altered by our author. From
about that time and onward the sources of the
Apocalypse have been diligently investigated.
128

THE REMAINING BOOKS

And in this way one hypothesis has followed on
another. And the attempt has been made to
prove that the final author merely put together
different works. But he was not a mere editor ;
in spite of its variegated character, the whole
work is too much of a unity. The connection
will of course remain that he has in this book
adopted and worked over, here quite ancient,
and there less ancient sources, and in particular
also Jewish elements.

Taken altogether so much will, I hope, become
plain, that this book contains for the expert the
most interesting problems, and that it must also
be worth the layman's attention, on account of
the energy of the faith with which the author in
a period of the severest distress seeks to strengthen
Christianity and vivify its hopes.

129

IV

THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON

MY final task is to show in some brief words
at least how these twenty-seven writings,
whose origin we have followed, grew together into
a unity, forming the New Testament Canon, i.e.
into a book which came to be treasured as the
chief rule of Christian faith, and the Christian
life, and was regarded as the inspired word of
God.

The beginnings of a collected New Testament
are perhaps to be set about the year A.D. 150.
Previously to this the Church did not possess
any New Testament, and had no expectation
that it would hereafter come. It does not follow
that this earliest period until A.D. 150 is without
importance for the origin of the Canon ; it is
rather a time in which its existence was gradually
being prepared for.

We must first of all ask, what were the standards
which existed in the beginning for the life and
faith of the churches, what the authority which
they recognised, on which they leaned, and to
which they appealed on debated points ?

130

THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON

First of all must be mentioned the Old Testa-
ment, the Scripture, as it was called, or the Holy
Scriptures. The Old Testament passed quietly
over into Christianity. The Church was, there-
fore, so to speak, born in possession of a written
authority. Since the Church came forth from
the womb of Judaism, that is really easily in-
telligible. Gentile Christians received the Old
Testament from Jewish Christians, and held it in
the same reverence ; and belief in its infallibility
was from the very first an important feature of
Christianity. The Old Testament remained in
part in Christianity what it had previously been
to the Jews, the great book of devotion, the book
of divine practical teaching for life and morals,
the book of religious truth. But it is more im-
portant to note that the book in another respect
essentially changed its significance. The chief
aspect under which Christianity regarded it
became more and more that of prophecy. All was
taken — not merely the prophetical books, but
also the law, and the Psalms as a collection of
prophecies of Christ and the " last time " that
arrived when He came. With this interpretation
the Old Testament became as it were a Messianic
apocalyptic work.

Along with the origin of the Church there arose
another authority, the words of Jesus. At first,
however, we have not to do with written gospels,
but with the handing down of the sayings of

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

Jesus by free oral tradition. From Paul we
can see how he decides certain questions of
Church life with these words of the Master. But
they had, generally speaking and to begin with,
their essential importance as rules of life, while
for questions of faith they were not prominent.
These words of Jesus were, of course, in the early
days still quite in flux ; a firmly fixed text as in
the Old Testament did not yet exist.

In addition to these examples, we can name a
third — there were, so to speak, living authorities
in the Church, that is, the men in whom they saw
the Spirit of God working, and in particular the
" prophets " who foretold the future, and, so to
speak, went about as travelling apocalyptic seers.
It was believed that what they said, particularly
in their ecstasies, was inspired by the Spirit.

All this is true of the earliest days. But when
Christianity became conscious that it already had
a past, then a fourth authority arose, that is,
the apostles. Originally they were not dogmatic
authorities, but they soon grew to be so, and
then took the position of representatives of the
true doctrine of Christ, and, at the same time, as
the deciding warrants of it. The twelve apostles
are mostly looked upon as a homogeneous body.
It is not their writings, though, which are con-
cerned to begin with. They represent an un-
written and, on that account, still indeterminate
authority.

132

THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON

Evidently we have in these facts certain ger-
minal elements of a later New Testament. We
feel that the development tends to a special valua-
tion of the gospels, on the one, and of the apos-
tolic writings on the other hand. At the moment
when the gospels became the depositaries of the
tradition of Christ's life, they were, of course,
first of all only the receptacles in which the costly
jewel was stored away, but we feel that finally the
receptacle would even be regarded as the jewel.
On the other hand, the apostolical authority could
not always remain as indeterminate as it was at
the commencement. As soon as an apostolic
literature existed, it was bound to be treasured
extraordinarily. The high respect for Christian
prophets further proclaims for the future a special
esteem for prophetical, i.e. apocalyptic writings.
Finally, one thing more requires to be emphasised,
that while the Old Testament was treated with
reverence, there existed from the first a guiding
line along which the whole subsequent develop-
ment must unconsciously proceed ; that is to
say, when once Christian writings generally
began to enjoy a higher value than others, the
goal was not reached until they were placed on
a complete equality with the Old Testament, and
they were deemed as equally infallible and in-
spired with it.

Meanwhile the period up to A.D. 150 is still
in another respect a time of preparation. Before

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

Christian writings were treasured as canonical,
and distinguished above others, they must be
collected. Such collections were made in this
period in various ways, although we know pro-
portionately little on the subject. Certainly the
epistles of Paul were collected somewhat early.
In the case of the gospels we must assume that
originally each church when it possessed a gospel
at all had only one. In time this would become
known to other churches. How exactly those four
gospels which we have were brought together has
not yet really been explained. Besides, the collec-
tion and interchange was not merely a matter of
private activity. A main point is rather that
Christian writings began to be read in divine
service, and were provided for this very purpose.
For this reason men naturally and gradually grew
accustomed to put a special value on these
writings.

Alongside this first period we place a second,
which reached from about A.D. 150 to 200. This
is the period during which the main trunk of
the New Testament was developed, and therefore
in this respect the most important period.

We have indeed testimonies from about A.D. 150
that the gospels were read in divine service along
with the Old Testament, but they themselves
did not yet pass for inspired writings, they were
valued for their content, and not as scriptures.
Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, explains quite

THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON

ingenuously that he sought for the oral tradition
of the words of Jesus because for him that oral
tradition appeared of more value than that
handed down in writings. As early as A.D. 150
the apocalypse of John emerges as a writing of
high repute. On the other hand, the epistles of
Paul in the same Justin Martyr, who gives us
information on the reading of the gospels in
divine service apparently do not stand on the
same level as the gospels, they keep quite in the
background. We find another state of the case in
the writings of another man of this period whom
the Church most bitterly hated: he had started
from being its member, but decided later on to
form a church of his own. Without question a
man of mark, with much affinity with the Gnos-
tics and much not so related. His name was
Marcion. In his works we light for the first time
on a proper Canon, and this includes two portions :
(i) our Gospel of Luke in, of course, an altered
form — it is simply regarded as the gospel ; (2) ten
epistles of Paul. The Pastoral Epistles are not
included. Marcion honoured Paul in opposition
to the rest of the apostles.

That is the position of things about A.D. 100.
How different the circumstances are about A.D.
200. Here we find in the great Church teachers,
Irenaeus of Lyons, Tertullian of Carthage, Clement
of Alexandria, a new Testament already in exist-
ence, which is here and there, of course, of different

i3S

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

inclusiveness. In Alexandria, for example, the
limits are wider, and some writings which to- day
are not in the Canon, were valued just as highly.
Out of the same time we have also already a
proper list of New Testament books in the so-
called Muratorian fragment. Here four gospels
are enumerated, the Acts of the Apostles, then
thirteen epistles of Paul. To these are added
the Epistle of Jude, and two epistles of John ;
the Epistle of James, and the Epistle of Peter are
not found ; whereas the First Epistle of Peter
passes as canonical elsewhere. To this there is in
addition the Apocalypse of John, and by the side
of it the Apocalypse of Peter has in many places
a canonical value ; and wre see plainly that a third
apocalyptic writing, the so-called Shepherd of
Hermas, enjoys in some quarters this position,
although it already begins to lose some of its
honour. In the midst of this enumeration there
is also found the Wisdom of Solomon, which now
stands in our Old Testament apocrypha. On the
average we may say, about this time, and in the
principal churches, all our present New Testament
writings are generally included in the Canon, with
the exception of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the
Second Epistle of Peter, the Second and Third
Epistles of John, and the Epistle of James.
But now and then also other writings stood in
the Canon, such as in Cilicia the Gospel of Peter
about A.D. 200 was in use as a canonical writing,

136

THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON

in Syria the so-called Diatessaron — a harmony of
the gospels, not our four gospels.

Now how in this period from A.D. 150 to 200
has such development been able to complete
itself ? We have seen that the value put on the
words of the Lord and the writings of the apostles
had within itself a tendency towards this end ; but
this does not explain everything. A chief point
here was the battle of the Church against Gnos-
ticism and other tendencies antagonistic to the
Church. In this battle the Church needed firm
means of proof, secure documents from which they
could prove themselves right and confute the errors
of their opponents. This has essentially contributed
to raise the value of these books. For the Old
Testament alone did not afford the necessary
weapons. It was necessary to be able to show
what the teaching of Christ and His apostles was,
and it was needful to be able to reject much that
was put forth as apostolical. To this is added the
fact that the opponents themselves probably set
the Church an example. At least Marcion appears
to have taken the lead by forming a canon.

There still remains a third period — up to the
conclusion of the Canon. This was reached
earliest in the West, and that about the end of
the fourth century. It lasted longer in the great
Eastern church, still longer in the separate
churches of the Orient, as in the Syrian. Here,
for example, the four gospels were not recognised

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

before the fourth century, and not without
conflict.

The content of these periods is not of equal
interest with the former, as it essentially concerns
merely the completion of extant constituents, the
exclusion of a certain amount of writings which
for a while passed as canonical, and the recon-
ciliation of differences in the various churches.
Nevertheless, this period also shows many
remarkable phenomena, e.g. in the East the
Revelation of John was within a hair's-breadth
of being again extruded from the Canon in the
fourth century. On the other hand, the Epistle
to the Hebrews now first gains canonical authority
in the West. And it is not until this time that
such writings as the Second Epistle of Peter,
the short Epistle of John, and the Epistle of
James, are actually admitted. But in the Canon
new writings are always cropping up, e.g. the
Acts of Paul for a time enjoyed great consider-
ation, a Third Epistle to the Corinthians (a
quite late compilation) gains authority in some
quarters. The Church judges, of course, in no
way by historical standards on these writings,
but, properly speaking, merely asks as to the
teaching which they contain. Still that which
did not crop up until later could not any more
become the common possession.

This whole history of the Canon palpably
teaches us, therefore, that it is the Church which

138

THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON

created the New Testament. And the Church is
here by no means the community of all believers,
but in truth the governing theologians and bishops,
it is they who were the proper framers of the Canon.
That shows us once more that we have a right to
make the writings of the New Testament a subject
of unbiased research. For the judgments of the
theologians and Church fathers of the second up
to the fourth century cannot be decisive for us,
and all the more as we know that these judgments
were often at variance. Meanwhile there is one
thing quite certain. Of course there are some
old Christian literary remains which are older than
or just as old as a series of New Testament books ;
there are also some, e.g. the so-called Teaching
of the twelve Apostles, which have just as high or
higher religious value, as, perhaps, the Epistle of
Jude or the Second Epistle of Peter, or the epistles
to Timothy and Titus. Nevertheless, it is on the
whole true that among the oldest Christian writings
which were then extant those of most religious
value, and among those religiously valuable those
which were earliest, have found their way into the
New Testament. And he who to-day from the
whole number of the books then extant should
form a collection of perhaps twenty of them,
would on the whole be bound to make choice of
the same as the Church then chose.

I am come to the end. I have attempted
with compulsory conciseness, and often merely

139

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

with hasty strokes, to set before you the way
in which present-day theological research thinks
on the origin of the New Testament writings.
It ought to be a matter-of-fact account, and I
hope I have presented nothing else. At all events
nothing has been further from my intention than
the design of hurting any one's feelings. Just as
little would I help by this work an inconsiderate
dogmatism on these matters.

Certainly it is true that science compels us
to correct many an inherited opinion on the
New Testament. But I believe that science
also yields us something ; I mean that it makes
the writings of the New Testament anew interesting
and fresh, for it teaches us how to understand
them as products of actual religious history,
as documents in which the actual life, faith, and
thought of the first Christian generations are de-
posited* The breath of life blows over us ; there
here speaks a rich, moving, struggling, and striving
period of progress ; out of it speak men who gave
themselves up with their whole soul, with fervency,
nay, with passionate zeal, to the new gospel,
which was to conquer the world, and who were
inspired by the deep earnestness which genuine
religion demands.

WILLIAM BRENDON AND SON, LTD.
PRINTERS; PLYMOUTH

Science for the General Reader

WORLDS IN THE MAKING

The Evolution of the Universe. SVANTE
ARRHENIUS, of the Nobel Institute, Stockholm.
Illustrated. 6s. net

Explains the origin of nebulae from suns and suns from
nebulae, the universal distribution of life, the conserva-
tion of energy, etc. , and shows how all may be accounted
for by the newly developed principle of the pressure of
light

ASTRONOMY WITH THE NAKED EYE

G. P. SERVISS. Illustrated. 6s. net

Telling all that may be seen in the skies without the aid
of the telescope

THE FRIENDLY STARS

M. E. MARTIN. Illustrated. $s. net

A handy volume, enabling the reader to identify the
principal stars and constellations

SIDELIGHTS ON ASTRONOMY

Prof. SIMON NEWCOMB. Illustrated. Js. 6d. net

Discusses such topics as " Are the Planets Inhabited ? "
etc. etc.

THE CHEMISTRY OF COMMERCE

Prof. R. K. DUNCAN, author of "The New
Knowledge." Illustrated. *js. 6d. net; post-
free, 7-r. lid.

An account of the scientific processes involved in modern
industry, with valuable suggestions for their extension

NEW CONCEPTIONS IN SCIENCE

CARL SNYDER. Illustrated. >js. 6d. net

Dealing with the new worlds revealed by the microscope,
telescope, etc., and the latest scientific theories based
thereon

NINETEENTH CENTURY SCIENCE

Dr. HENRY SMITH WILLIAMS. Illustrated. 9*.

A review of the great scientific achievements of modern
times, and the problems now being investigated

"Short studies on great subjects by distinguished
living men." :: :: :: — The Standard.

HARPER'S LIBRARY OF
LIVING THOUGHT

Foolscap 8voy gilt toj>st decorative covers^ richly gilt backs
Per Volum€ : Cloth 25. 6d. net, Leather 3*. 6d. net

Some Contributors i

ALGERNON CHARLES SWINBURNE

COUNT LEO TOLSTOY
W. M, FLINDERS PETRIE

SIR OLIVER LODGE

THEODORE WATTS-DUNTON

SVANTE ARRHENIUS

ERNEST A. GARDNER

ARNOLD MEYER

SIR WILLIAM CROOKES

&c. &c.

"A permanently useful addition to literature.*'
: : : : : : : : — The Daily Telegraph.

" Presenting suggestive * living ' thoughts on subjects
of vital interest." :: :: :: —The Times

Harper's Library of Living Thought
Now READY:

ALGERNON CHARLES SWINBURNE

THREE PLAYS OF SHAKESPEARE

" Leads us to so many fine points of observation."

Daily Telegraph
" Luminous and valuable."— Standard

COUNT LEO TOLSTOY

THE TEACHING OF JESUS

" Will set students thinking. "—Christian World
W. M. FLINDERS PETRIE

PERSONAL RELIGION IN EGYPT BE-
FORE CHRISTIANITY

" Shows what Christianity meant to those who actually
heara the teaching of the Way "

SIR OLIVER LODGE

THE ETHER OF SPACE

Advocating the view which makes the Ether not only all
pervading, but substantial beyond conception — the most
substantial thing — perhaps the only substantial thing in
the material universe

PROF. C. H. BECKER

CHRISTIANITY AND ISLAM

A study of the similarities, differences, and the inter-
action of ideas between the two schools of religious
thought

"A bold enterprise and one to be commended,"
: : : : : : : : — The Daily Ch) onicU

Harper's Library of Living Thought

Now Ready :

THREE PLAYS OF SHAKESPEARE
ALGERNON CHARLES SWINBURNE

THE TEACHING OF JESUS
LEO TOLSTOY

PERSONAL RELIGION IN EGYPT BEFORE
CHRISTIANITY
W. M. FLINDERS PETRIE

THE ETHER OF SPACE
SIR OLIVER LODGE

THE ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTA-
MENT PROF. WILLIAM WREDE (Uni-
versity of Breslau)

CHRISTIANITY AND ISLAM

PROF. C. H. BECKER (Colonial Institute,
Hamburg)

Forthcoming:

RELIGION AND ART IN ANCIENT GREECE
PROF. ERNEST A. GARDNER (University of
London)

THE LIFE OF THE UNIVERSE 2 vols.
PROF. SVANTE ARRHENIUS (Nobel Insti-
tute, Stockholm)

JESUS OR PAUL?

PROF. ARNOLD MEYER (University of
Zurich)

POETIC "ADEQUACY'' IN THE TWEN-
TIETH CENTURY
THEODORE WATTS-DUNTON

HARPER & BROTHERS April, IQOQ

45 Albemarle Street :: :: London, W.

14 DAY USE

RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED
LOAN DEPT.

This book is due on the last date stamped below, or

on the date to which renewed.
Renewed books are subject to immediate recall.

25Nov-'57RK

I

DEC 2 6 1957

REC'D LD

DEC 10 1357

General Library
LD 21A-50m-8,'57 University of California
(C8481slO)476B Berkeley

08539

i